Abstract: Advancing Lgbtiq+ Human Rights In the Asia-Pacific Region: A Community-Based Delphi Study of Inclusion Priorities for Policy and Practice (Society for Social Work and Research 31st Annual Conference)

Schedule:

Friday, January 22, 2027

Union Station 11 (Hilton San Francisco Union Square)

* noted as presenting author

Peter A. Newman, PhD, Professor, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Duy Dinh, Medical student, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Suchon Tepjan, MPH, Research Manager, VOICES-Thailand Foundation, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Surachet Roungprakhon, MEd, Lecturer, Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon, Bangkok, Thailand

Holning Lau, JD, Willie Person Mangum Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Nachale Boonyapisomparn, MA, Program Officer, International Trans Fund, Bangkok, Thailand

Yu-Te Huang, PhD, Associate Professor, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Venkatesan Chakrapani, MD, PhD, Chairperson, Centre for Sexuality and Health Research and Policy (C-SHaRP), Chennai, India

Background and Purpose
LGBTIQ+ populations across the Asia-Pacific experience persistent human rights inequities shaped by legal exclusion, pervasive stigma across homes, schools, workplaces and healthcare, and structural barriers. Global frameworks emphasizing formal legal protections often fail to capture disparities in lived experiences. Drawing on Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach emphasizing substantive freedoms and real opportunities, this study builds on the UNDP LGBTQI+ Inclusion Index to identify and quantify priority indicators for advancing LGBTIQ+ human rights and inclusion: Which indicators are most critical for enabling LGBTIQ+ inclusion? How do expert stakeholders prioritize these across education, family, health, economic, personal security/violence, and political/civic participation?

Methods
We conducted a community-based participatory research (CBPR)-enhanced mixed-methods Delphi study, valuing equally academic and community expertise, and qualitative and quantitative data. Participants purposively sampled based on diverse expertise addressing multiple domains were identified through publicly-available websites, community and academic networks. Phase 1 (n=65; 60% cisgender men, 31% cisgender women, 9% trans/gender diverse) participants completed an online survey (May-July 2024), ranking (1-5) priority indicators of LGBTIQ+ inclusion (9-15 indicators/domain). Weighted rank sums (WRS) were calculated to determine relative priorities. Phase 2 focus groups (n=26) conducted in Bangkok (June 2025) with experts from 7 countries informed new and refined indicators. Phase 3 (n=115)(July/August 2025): previous and newly invited participants rated each indicator’s importance on a 9-point Likert scale, with consensus pre-defined as ≥75% participants rating of “critically important” (scores 7–9). Descriptive statistics and Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests assessed consensus and differences between stakeholder groups.

Results
Across domains, results demonstrated high consensus on indicators reflecting both structural protections and lived experiences. Phase 1: top-ranked indicators included legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (WRS=228), decriminalization of same-sex intimacy/behavior (WRS=166), hate-crime legislation (WRS=154), implementation of employment non-discrimination laws (WRS=150), patient non-discrimination protections (WRS=137), and diversity-inclusive curricula (WRS=125). Phase 2: 22 additional prospective indicators derived across domains were included in next-round survey. Phase 3: multiple indicators achieved strong consensus (≥90% rating 7–9): legal gender recognition (98.1%), decriminalization of same-sex conduct (97.2%), patient non-discrimination protections (97.3%), protections against violence (97.1%), and LGBTIQ-affirming healthcare (96.4%). De jure indicators related to implementation and lived experience (e.g., discrimination, stigma) consistently ranked as highly as or higher than de facto indicators reflecting formal legal frameworks, along with proactive inclusion measures: LGBTQ+ competency training for healthcare providers (93.6%), recognition of parental rights (91.8%), and diversity-inclusive education (90.4%). Few statistically significant differences were observed between academic and community stakeholders, indicating broad consensus.

Conclusions and Implications
Findings provide mixed-methods evidence supporting a capability-based approach to LGBTIQ+ inclusion, demonstrating that formal rights must be complemented by effective implementation and enabling social conditions. High consensus on indicators related to lived experience and proactive inclusion highlights the importance of addressing structural determinants of inequality. Social work should strategically promote integration of rights-based and capability-enhancing approaches that prioritize community engagement and culturally responsive interventions, policy strengthening enforcement of protections, investing in inclusive education, and recognizing diverse family structures. This study contributes to global LGBTIQ+ rights advocacy, providing empirically grounded, community-engaged and consensus-driven indicators to guide policy, research, and practice toward advancing democratic inclusion.