Where translation falls short in practice
June 10, 2026 | Localisation, clinical trial, translation
Discover why translation alone is not enough in global clinical trials and how expert localisation improves participant understanding, trust and engagement.
Running global clinical trials requires clear communication with participants. Every detail needs to land as intended. But a technically accurate translation may still fall short, creating avoidable barriers for participants and adding clarification burdens for site staff.
This is the gap between translated material and content that is genuinely understood. While standard translation focuses on linguistic accuracy, expert localisation adapts the meaning, context and tone so it works for the intended audience.
Accuracy does not guarantee understanding
So, what if the translation is technically correct but the participant still has to ask the site team what it really means? This is where localisation becomes essential.
It would be easy to assume a correctly translated sentence automatically conveys the intended meaning. In clinical research, this assumption can create challenges.
Before localisation even begins, we carefully craft the master document with the right tone, turning complex medical language into clear, plain English. Right from the start, this approach helps make our materials easier to understand. Once that solid foundation is set, our localisation experts adapt the content for each target language, making sure phrasing and sentence structures flow naturally while preserving the necessary medical accuracy. Ultimately, this process bridges the gap between technical correctness and real participant understanding.
How tone and intent shift across borders
Language is deeply tied to culture. What sounds polite and encouraging in one country might sound demanding or inappropriately casual in another.
For example, in some cultures, participant-facing materials are expected to use highly formal language, while in others a more conversational, approachable style is preferred. If materials written in plain English are directly translated without adapting the tone, they can come across as either too informal or overly authoritative, depending on the context. Localising content carefully adapts not just the words but the underlying intent, making sure it resonates with local expectations and, most importantly, helps foster participant trust.
Why right can still feel wrong
Even with perfect grammar, content can still feel unnatural. Best-practice research on translation and cultural adaptation in clinical studies has long shown that concepts and phrasing may need to be adapted, not just translated, to remain meaningful and relevant for the target audience. A recent study by Gregório et al. (2025) is one of many to evidence this.
Idiomatic expressions or metaphors used to explain how a drug works rarely cross borders intact. A ‘lock and key’ metaphor makes perfect sense to an English speaker, but it might have a totally different meaning in another region.
When trial participants read materials that feel distinctly foreign, they may question if the trial truly understands their needs. It’s vital that every piece of information reads as if it were written specifically for that local participant, in their own cultural context.
Spotting the warning signs
Poor translation can create operational challenges long before participants raise concerns directly. Trial teams may see the impact in added site queries, slower consent processes, misunderstandings around trial requirements and, over time, risks to protocol adherence and retention.
The value of getting it right
Standard translation gets your words across the border, but strategic localisation gets your meaning into the hands of the participant. We pride ourselves on delivering localised clinical trial materials that minimise confusion, reduce operational challenges and keep trials running smoothly.
Recognising where translation falls short is the first step. Next, we’ll look at what effective localisation actually looks like in practice.
This content was provided by Cuttsy + Cuttsy
Company Details
Latest Content from Cuttsy + Cuttsy
Clinical trials explained: Why colour matters…
Colour can be used to emphasise mood, evoke emotions, and determine first impressions of a brand. Find how to use colour effectively in your next clinical trial campaign.
Clinical trials explained: Why branding matters…
With nearly a decade’s experience supporting clinical trials, find out why we think humanising trials through design is so important.
DPHARM2023 – Five key themes impacting clinical trials today
Throughout three fascinating days of conference, some key themes emerged that are impacting study teams and the effectiveness of their clinical trials on a daily basis.
Flexible working: a fad or the future?
As the Flexible Working Bill gets written into UK law, we took a look at what this means for businesses of all sizes and specialities.
Looking for a job head first
During Health Information Week, we reflected on mental health and wellbeing within the workplace. Cuttsy+Cuttsy’s mental health first aider and HR Manager, Kate McCabe, shared some thoughts on what mental…
Patients as Partners – putting people first in clinical trials
Cuttsy+Cuttsy’s key takeaways from the Patients as Partners conference 2023
What are the ingredients for a perfect partnership?
Perfect partnerships can take many forms. Just like avocado and toast or tea and biscuits, all good on their own, but better together.
Cuttsy Cares Continues…
Cuttsy+Cuttsy’s charitable programme — Cuttsy Cares — has been running for the past 2 years, providing the team with the opportunity to support causes close to their hearts.
B-lown away by our first CDP rating
A catch up with Louise Jones, Cuttsy+Cuttsy’s sustainability officer, on what was achieved in 2022, the agency’s latest environmental assessment with CDP and a look ahead to 2023.
Cuttsy+Cuttsy campaign takes health literacy to the North Pole
Our 2022 Christmas campaign saw Santa’s agency elves creating tailored materials for patients. But were the examples guided by the principles of health literacy? Were they naughty or nice?