BACKGROUND There has been increasing evidence and debate on palliative care research priorities and the international research agenda. To date, however, there is a lack of synthesis of this evidence, examining commonalities, differences, and gaps. To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities originating from Western countries mapped to a quality assessment framework. METHODS A systematic review of several academic and grey databases were searched from January 2008-June 2019 for studies eliciting research priorities in palliative care in English. Two researchers independently reviewed, critically appraised, and conducted data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS The search yielded 10,235 articles (academic databases, n = 4108; grey literature, n = 6127), of which ten were included for appraisal and review. Priority areas were identified: service models; continuity of care; training and education; inequality; communication; living well and independently; and recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas. The priorities were mapped to the Donabedian framework for assessing quality reflecting structure, process and outcomes and key priority areas. CONCLUSIONS Limited evidence exists pertaining to research priorities across palliative care. Whilst a broad range of topics were elicited, approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The voice of the care provider dominated, calling for more inclusive means to capture the patient and family voice. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research, identify gaps, and extend the palliative care research agenda.

中文翻译：

---

国际姑息治疗研究重点：系统回顾。

背景 关于姑息治疗研究重点和国际研究议程的证据和争论越来越多。然而，迄今为止，还缺乏对这些证据的综合分析，检查其共性、差异和差距。识别和综合来自西方国家的国际姑息治疗研究重点文献，并映射到质量评估框架。方法 对 2008 年 1 月至 2019 年 6 月期间的多个学术和灰色数据库进行系统回顾，以寻找引出英语姑息治疗研究重点的研究。两名研究人员独立审查、批判性评价并进行数据提取和综合。结果 检索出 10,235 篇文章（学术数据库，n = 4108；灰色文献，n = 6127），其中 10 篇被纳入评估和审查。确定了优先领域：服务模式；护理的连续性；培训和教育；不等式; 沟通; 生活良好且独立；认识到家庭/照顾者的需求以及家庭的重要性。报告的方法和过程各不相同。几乎没有代表患者和护理人员驱动的议程。这些优先事项被映射到多纳贝迪安框架，用于评估反映结构、过程和结果以及关键优先领域的质量。结论 关于姑息治疗研究重点的证据有限。虽然引发了广泛的主题，但方法和样本各不相同，对研究结果的可信度提出了质疑。护理人员的声音占主导地位，呼吁采取更具包容性的手段来捕捉患者和家人的声音。这项研究的结果可以作为了解研究共性、找出差距和扩展姑息治疗研究议程的模板。