Abstract
Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death among patients with prostate cancer. While the American Heart Association’s PREVENT Score offers a comprehensive lab-based CVD risk prediction model, its integration into oncology workflows is hindered by logistical barriers. To address this gap, the GUHA-STABELLINI Score was developed as a simplified, lab-independent tool tailored for use in specialty care settings.
Objective To evaluate physician preferences, implementation feasibility, and contextual fit of the GUHA-STABELLINI versus PREVENT Score using the RE-AIM (i.e., Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) model.
Methods A cross-sectional survey was administered to 45 oncology-specialized physicians across academic and community settings. The survey, structured around RE-AIM domains, assessed preferences, implementation perceptions, and perceived effectiveness of each tool. Quantitative responses were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative comments were thematically coded.
Results A significant majority (93%) of respondents preferred the GUHA-STABELLINI Score over PREVENT, citing its ease of use and alignment with clinical workflows. Across RE-AIM domains, GUHA-STABELLINI scored highly in adaptability (71%), cost/resource feasibility (65%), perceived effectiveness (87%), and equity of reach and outcomes (75% and 73%, respectively). Respondents emphasized the tool’s real-time usability, low resource dependency, and ability to facilitate shared decision-making without laboratory input.
Conclusions Despite marginally lower predictive precision, the GUHA-STABELLINI Score demonstrates superior feasibility, reach, and clinical utility within oncology clinics. Findings highlight the importance of implementation-informed design in developing decision support tools. Future research should focus on validating clinical outcomes and expanding use across specialties. The GUHA-STABELLINI Score serves as a model for pragmatic, specialty-integrated preventive care solutions in resource-constrained environments.
Question Among oncology-specialized physicians, does the simplified and laboratory-independent GUHA-STABELLINI cardiovascular risk score offer superior perceived implementability and clinical utility compared with the AHA PREVENT Score for prostate cancer patients on androgen deprivation therapy?
Findings In this cross-sectional survey of 45 physicians, 93% preferred the GUHA-STABELLINI Score over the AHA PREVENT Score. Respondents rated GUHA-STABELLINI as highly adaptable to workflow (71%), cost- and resource-feasible (65%), and likely to be effective (87%) and equitable in reach (75%), despite its slightly lower predictive precision.
Meaning A context-aligned, low-burden cardiovascular risk tool such as GUHA-STABELLINI may achieve greater clinical uptake in oncology settings than more complex laboratory-dependent models, highlighting the central role of implementation-informed design in successful adoption.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Ethics Committee/IRB of Augusta University has waived ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
