FindTrial
Sign In

Comparison of two informed consent processes

A comparative study of two informed consent processes- Audio Visual (AV) consenting versus written informed consent in a study with a rabies monoclonal antibody â?? a prospective analysis. - AV

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2015/05/005736
Enrollment
50
Registered
2015-05-01
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2021-11-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

Department of Clinical Pharmacology Seth GSMCandKEMHospital
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: participation and completion of follow ups in rabies monoclonal antibody study conducted in the department. willing to give informed consent

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: participants who withdrew consent or discontinued from the rabies monoclonal antibody study

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
To determine if audio visual consenting is superior in improving participants understandingofstudyprotocolas comparedtowritteninformedconsentprocedureTimepoint: NA—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
no secondory outcomeTimepoint: NA—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Urmila Thatte

Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M Hospital

urmilathatte@gmail.com02224133767

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026