It goes without saying that the accuracy of scientific texts in general, and medical information in particular, is absolutely crucial. This can make the translation of such texts particularly demanding – but there are significant impacts of localisation far beyond purely scientific meaning and literal equivalence.
Long before scientific papers and findings start to make a difference in the post-study world, the nature of study itself poses linguistic challenges. What languages do the researchers on the team speak, and what implications does that have on which study participants you can recruit? What languages is your consent form available in? Just how good does a person’s English need to be in order for their consent to be considered fully informed and legitimate if the information provided to them is all in English?
Who gets to partake in studies and trials?
In the US, non-English speakers are often excluded from research studies and clinical trials, with racial and ethnic minorities generally underrepresented. Even if allowed, those whose mother tongue isn’t English are less likely to opt in to take part in trials.
From a post-study perspective, once findings are published and applied in healthcare settings, any language barriers during the research phase must be considered in terms of the implications they have for representation and the validity of the findings. How well documented are things like prevalence and risks across different population cohorts if some have far higher rates of non-native English speakers, for instance? As for population averages, should they be considered valid at all if the study groups are not representative of the population at large?
Mental health and communicating trust
Consider mental health services and the need for trauma-informed care among vulnerable migrant groups who may speak very little English at all. What happens if there’s a shortage of qualified interpreters for certain languages, or if marketing materials and information leaflets aren’t translated into enough languages in the first place?
We’ve done some work for a client in the mental health space who, among other things, needed help with translating user guides. Aimed at those struggling with their mental health, perhaps as a result of addiction or traumatic experiences, these guides had to hit exactly the right tone to instil a sense of trust and stave off any potential feelings of shame.
One instance when we got some feedback from the Italian market demonstrated this very well: our linguist had done a great job in providing accurate translations that conveyed the same message and tone as the source text – and yet at a market level, the client opted to make some changes. Why? It was simply a case of preference, arising from user feedback. It was a no-brainer to the client then: the audience always comes first, and their preference will always trump both grammatical and semantic arguments. After all, what’s the point of a guide for mental health services if it isn’t immediately appealing to the reader?
Precautions and safety sheets
In a less urgent context yet with similar considerations for health risks is the work we’ve done for a beauty brand, where products such as brow dye and eyelash glue need to be very clear on both instructions for use and precautions. Where things like chemicals and allergies are concerned, you don’t want room for ambiguity.
In some cases, the traditional use of so-called back translations – where the linguist translates the source text and provides a literal back translation to help the client understand their rationale – can help bridge any gaps, scientific or cultural. Beauty product safety sheets, for instance, typically fall into this category.
Making translation the norm – for the sake of inclusivity
In some instances, however, back translations leave a lot to be desired. That’s when we appreciate clients who know to use linguists with roots in and an understanding of the target market – and who still insist on testing the content on local users. That’s assuming the content is translated at all in the first place. For the sake of inclusivity and representation, here’s hoping that becomes more of a norm than an exception in academic, scientific and medical contexts in the years to come.