Palliative care is gaining acceptance across the world. However, even when palliative care resources exist, both the delivery and distribution of services too often are neither equitably nor acceptably provided to diverse population groups. The goal of this study was to illustrate tensions in the delivery of palliative care for diverse patient populations to help clinicians to improve care for all. We begin by defining and differentiating culture, race, and ethnicity, so that these terms-often used interchangeably-are not conflated and are more effectively used in caring for diverse populations. We then present examples from an integrative literature review of recent research on culture and palliative care to illustrate both how and why varied responses to pain and suffering occur in different patterns, focusing on four areas of palliative care: the formation of care preferences, communication patterns, different meanings of suffering, and decision-making processes about care. For each area, we provide international and multiethnic examples of variations that emphasize the need for personalization of care and the avoidance of stereotyping beliefs and practices without considering individual circumstances and life histories. We conclude with recommendations for improving palliative care research and practice with cultural perspectives, emphasizing the need to work in partnerships with patients, their family members, and communities to identify and negotiate culturally meaningful care, promote quality of life, and ensure the highest quality palliative care for all, both domestically and internationally.

Research to guide rural palliative care practice is sparse. Approaches to telehealth, community- academic partnerships, and training rural health care professionals show promise, but more research is needed to determine best practices for providing palliative care to patients living in rural settings.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pathways to Prevention Workshop: Advancing the Research on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was cosponsored by the NIH Office of Disease Prevention and the Trans-NIH Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research Working Group. A multidisciplinary working group developed the agenda, and an Evidence-based Practice Center prepared an evidence report through a contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to facilitate the discussion. During the 1.5-day workshop, invited experts discussed the body of evidence and attendees had the opportunity to comment during open discussions. After weighing evidence from the evidence report, expert presentations, and public comments, an unbiased, independent panel prepared a draft report that identified research gaps and future research priorities. The report was posted on the NIH Office of Disease Prevention Web site for 4 weeks for public comment.