three things a discussion section needs

your discussion section, oddly, should 

• conclude. you should come to a conclusion and make an inference about what is suggested by all 10 of your studies taken together. then, you should
• verify that your conclusion is consistent with the already known.  this you will have to do with Berridge (2016). you will have to argue that your results factors in with and don't contradict what is going on in the field of public health in general. place your results into a broader context. last, you need to 
• provide some kind of relief, by which i mean, you will need to be able to articulate a competing positions and show both how and why it would be reasonable for a researcher to hold that position. but then you have to go on to say how, despite how persuasive that other position is, you ultimately have to go with your position, though for this reason. then give that reason. that is, you need a reason why someone would want to hold a competing position. but then you also obviously want a reason why someone would want to take your position instead. either a better reason, or another reason. either way, there need to be two chains of reasoning here--for and against. you can think about it as a counterargument if you want.

those are the three things a discussion section should do.