False Friends in Healthcare

Introduction

In the intricate world of healthcare, the MedTech (Medical Technology) and Pharma (Pharmaceutical) industries represent two pivotal pillars. Despite their shared goal of improving patient outcomes, these sectors operate with distinct terminologies and operational paradigms. This divergence often leads to misunderstandings, particularly in a pharma-centric regulatory environment where the language and priorities of Pharma dominate. One intriguing linguistic phenomenon that can be leveraged to highlight these differences and prevent unnecessary constraints on the MedTech industry is the concept of "false friends." False friends are words in two different languages or jargons that look or sound similar but have different meanings. This paper explores how false friends can be used to underscore the key differences between MedTech and Pharma jargons, thereby fostering better understanding and preventing the MedTech industry from being unduly constrained by pharma-centric regulations.

Understanding False Friends

Definition and Types of False Friends

False friends are words or phrases in two different languages or jargons that appear similar but have different meanings. They can be categorized into several types based on their origins:

1. Semantic False Friends: These have the same etymological origin but have developed different meanings in different languages or jargons. For example, the English word "jubilation" (happiness) and the Spanish "jubilación" (retirement) share a common root but have different meanings.
2. Phonological False Friends: These words sound similar due to phonetic similarities but have different meanings. For example, the English "actual" and the Spanish "actual" (current) sound similar but mean different things.
3. Idiomatic False Friends: These occur when idiomatic expressions or phrases are misunderstood across languages or jargons. For example, "go-to-market strategy" might be interpreted differently in terms of timelines and processes in Pharma versus MedTech.

Linguistic Origins of False Friends

Linguists have studied false friends extensively to understand their origins and implications. The term "false friends" was coined by French linguists Maxime Koessler and Jules Derocquigny in 1928. These words often arise due to historical changes in language, where some false friends share a common etymological origin but have diverged in meaning over time due to different cultural and linguistic developments.

The Divergence of MedTech and Pharma Jargons

MedTech Jargon

MedTech focuses on the development and manufacture of medical devices, diagnostic equipment, and health information systems. The jargon in this sector includes terms like device integration, biocompatibility, user interface, and wearable technology. These terms reflect the engineering, usability, and technological aspects of medical devices.

Pharma Jargon

In contrast, Pharma is concerned with the discovery, development, and commercialization of drugs and therapies. The jargon in this sector includes terms like clinical trials, efficacy, dosage, and side effects. These terms are deeply rooted in the process of drug development, regulatory approval, and patient safety.

The Impact of False Friends in MedTech and Pharma

False friends can lead to significant misunderstandings between the MedTech and Pharma sectors. For example, the term "trial" in Pharma refers to a rigorous, multi-phase process to test the safety and efficacy of a drug. In MedTech, a "trial" might refer to a usability test or a pilot study to assess the functionality of a device. Such differences can lead to confusion when stakeholders from one sector interpret the jargon of the other through their own lens.

Political and Economic Stakeholders: A Case of Misinterpretation

Political and economic stakeholders, including policymakers, investors, and regulators, often have a background or greater familiarity with Pharma due to its longer history and more established regulatory frameworks. This familiarity can lead to a bias in understanding and interpreting MedTech innovations and challenges. For instance, a policymaker well-versed in Pharma might prioritize clinical trial data over usability studies, not recognizing that the latter is crucial for MedTech products.

Consequences of Misinterpretation

1. Regulatory Hurdles: MedTech companies might face regulatory requirements designed for Pharma products, which may not be entirely applicable or necessary for medical devices. This can slow down the approval process and increase costs.
2. Investment Decisions: Investors familiar with Pharma might undervalue MedTech innovations because they do not fit the traditional metrics of drug development, such as long-term clinical trials and extensive safety data.
3. Policy Formulation: Policies designed to support healthcare innovation might inadvertently favor Pharma over MedTech, leading to an imbalance in funding, support, and development opportunities.

Bridging the Gap: An Urgent Need in the Age of AI

The urgency to bridge the gap between MedTech and Pharma has become even more critical with the rise of AI-based solutions. These technologies are spreading well beyond MedTech and intersecting with Pharma products, their development, and delivery in many therapies. AI-driven innovations are transforming both sectors, making it imperative to understand and align their distinct jargons to foster collaboration and innovation.

Education and Training

Stakeholders should be educated about the unique aspects of MedTech, including its development cycles, regulatory needs, and impact on patient care. This education can help stakeholders appreciate the distinct challenges and opportunities in the MedTech sector, especially as AI-based solutions become more prevalent.

Collaborative Frameworks

Creating platforms for dialogue between MedTech and Pharma professionals can help in sharing knowledge and aligning terminologies. Such frameworks can facilitate better understanding and collaboration between the two sectors, particularly in the context of AI-driven innovations.

Tailored Policies

Regulatory bodies should develop policies that recognize the distinct needs of MedTech, ensuring that medical devices are evaluated based on criteria relevant to their functionality and use. Tailored policies can prevent MedTech companies from being unduly constrained by Pharma-centric regulations, especially as AI technologies blur the lines between the two sectors.

Cross-Sector Investments

Encouraging investments that span both MedTech and Pharma can help investors appreciate the value and potential of innovations in both fields. Cross-sector investments can foster a more integrated and supportive environment for healthcare innovation, particularly in the realm of AI.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

Regulatory bodies and institutions should develop clear policies on communication that recognize the complexity of languages and are followed by all organizations and individuals. These policies should include practical steps such as staff training, a culture of zero tolerance towards translation errors, and a responsible attitude towards reviewing and vetting translated material.

The Role of Regulatory Bodies

Regulatory bodies play a crucial role in driving positive change in language and communication standards in the healthcare industry. By developing and enforcing guidelines that promote clear and accurate communication, regulatory bodies can help prevent misunderstandings and ensure that MedTech companies are not unduly constrained by Pharma-centric regulations.

Conclusion

The relationship between MedTech and Pharma is a complex interplay of shared goals and divergent paths. The false friends in their jargons can lead to significant misunderstandings, particularly among political and economic stakeholders more familiar with Pharma. By recognizing and addressing these linguistic and conceptual barriers, we can foster a more integrated and supportive environment for both sectors, ultimately leading to better healthcare outcomes. Understanding the nuances of each sector's language is not just a matter of semantics; it is a crucial step towards innovation and progress in healthcare.

Future Outlook

As language requirements continue to evolve, ongoing research and innovative collaborations across policymakers, practitioners, civil society, and those impacted by and benefiting from the research will be essential. By continuously identifying and addressing new false friends, we can ensure that the MedTech industry thrives in a Pharma-centric healthcare environment, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes and healthcare innovation.

References

1. Koessler, M., & Derocquigny, J. (1928). Les Faux Amis ou Les Trahisons du Vocabulaire Anglais. Paris: Vuibert.
2. Chamizo Domínguez, P. J., & Nerlich, B. (2002). False friends: their origin and semantics in some selected languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1833-1849.
3. Hill, R. (1982). Dictionary of False Friends. London: Macmillan.
4. Magni, L., Marchetti, G., Alharbi, A., (2024). Learnable Linguistics For Business Leaders. Open Research Books by Luiss Business School. https://store.youcanprint.it/learnable-linguistics-for-business-leaders/b/79f68762-9796-51ce-a869-1d7038cff0e8
5. Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (2001). Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 245-272.