Translating evidence into impact: The case of 'supermagnet' desk toys.

Daniel Rosenfield,M. Strickland,C. M. Hepburn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/PCH/20.4.175

2015-05-01

Paediatrics & Child Health

Abstract:1Department of Paediatrics; 2Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Correspondence: Dr Daniel Rosenfield, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8. E-mail daniel.rosenfield@mail.utoronto.ca Accepted for publication January 7, 2015 In the early 1980s, new discoveries in material science led to the development of neodymium-iron-boron magnets. These rareearth magnets are 10 to 20 times stronger than traditional ferrite (ie, fridge) magnets. By the 2000s, these ‘supermagnets’ were being integrated into a variety of consumer goods including children’s toys (1). Toys that incorporated these supermagnets were swiftly removed from the market in 2006, following the death of a toddler who ingested several magnets found within one particular product (2,3). When multiple magnets are swallowed, they can attract one another and link through different loops of bowel, causing pressure necrosis in the wall of the intestine. This can lead to bowel perforation, sepsis and death (4,5). Despite the recalls in 2006, the threat to children’s health re-emerged in 2009, in the form of a desk curio comprised of dozens of supermagnets, strategically sold as ‘desk toys’ for adults. Unfortunately, children who encountered these products often ingested pieces, resulting in a dramatic increase in hospital presentations requiring endoscopy and surgical removal of these multiple magnet ingestions (MMI). In 2012, various governments around the world moved to ban these desk toys. The Canadian government followed suit in June 2013 (Figure 1). The present article highlights how this novel threat was identified and how national-level policy changes were implemented. Clinical research is often conducted with the aim of improving individual and/or population health outcomes; however, clinicians and health system leaders often do not use the best evidence in their decision-making processes. In an effort to narrow this divide, knowledge translation (KT) – ensuring that the knowledge-to-action gap is closed – has been identified as fundamental to the research endeavour (6,7). The disconnect between evidence and practice is especially apparent in health policy planning for complex systems with many stakeholders (7-10). Although many policy makers aim to integrate high-quality evidence into a rigorous, systematic and time-sensitive public administration procedure (11), policy change is often the result of a disjointed, opportunistic, multidimensional process, informed, in large part, by public opinion and political philosophy (11). For physicians and researchers to effectively translate new and important evidence into system-level health policy, they must have a thorough understanding of the current strengths, limitations and realities of the policy arena. The present article describes the experience of effecting evidence-based change at the health system level. Illustrated by a recent Canadian case study, the present review highlights the importance of primary research, and details the complex and multifaceted relationships among evidence, the media, coalition-based