We know, for example, that a number of issues affect marginalized women. I spoke about pre‑eclampsia or other types of inflammatory diagnoses that affect marginalized women in different proportions to the rest of the population. Sometimes, we look at these types of statistics and think that this proportion isn't very significant compared with other types of statistics.
However, we must also consider that these women are under‑represented. As researchers, we all know this. When we ask women to participate, we generally try hard to reach out to under‑represented people. This still poses a hurdle. The issue of trust in our motives still arises when we carry out these types of studies.
Unless we specifically focus on these people, many of our studies don't provide representative results. We can benefit from working with communities and community partners, because they have already built relationships. In our indigenous populations and in the populations of Black women with whom we often work, these women are already integrated into many of the community resources. To ensure more representative results, it would be much better to work more with these community organizations, which have already established a bond of trust.
I'm providing this common example because of time constraints. However, it's something to consider. I think that we should also support the work of the Canadian task force on preventive health care, while funding more research that specifically focuses on these women.
Implementation science projects are expensive. They involve not only a community of researchers, but also practitioners accustomed to often conducting research. We must work with people who have lived experience in the community and who aren't experts in the field. We need funds to carry out proper studies, not just observational studies, which are limited in terms of positioning.