There is an interesting aspect of health economics, yet a bit overlooked by the literature which is related to the quantitative methods used for assessing the macroeconomic costs generated by the epidemiological burden. An update would provide great insights for researchers working on the subject.
In my opinion, an increased production of meta-analyses in health and medicine provides an opportunity to review the contributions of that relatively new method to the field of public health.
Suggest you focus in close on individual and lifestyle - e.g. electric shock - where - when, neurotoxic chemicals maybe from work - TBI Traumatic Brain Injury - where hit - by what - fall? - effects? - exposure to agrichemicals ? - near Airports? - heavy metals in local water supply - EMFs that can generate Reactive Oxygen Species from 'spin'. Cumulative summation of complex multiple factors must be considered . Remember that human spinal cord is half wave dipole for RF !
I'd suggest a different approach. Decide on the most important research question(s). Then pick a method to answer the question - meta-analysis is likely not to be the right method, especially in public health where heterogeneity of intervention and context can really get in the way. Direct translation of method directly from clinical medicine is not always as smooth as you might hope.
Acredito que seja necessário se investir em meta-analise em temáticas como: fatores protetores do suicídio; medicamentos em quadros de esquizofrenia; bem como em promoção da saúde... Relacionando à Burnout e depressão, talvez investigando a influência da fé e da espiritualidade nestes quadros.