This question is built on Geoffrey Rose's idea that a whole community carries a spread of risk, not just a few high risk people, and prevention works best when it targets that whole spread.
- Shift the population curve of risk factors by a population based approach: This nudges everyone's risk factor a little lower, salt intake, blood pressure, blood sugar, across the whole community. Since most disease cases come from the large moderate risk group rather than the small high risk group, this approach prevents the most disease overall.
- Focus on high risk individuals for reduction of risk: This helps the few people already at high risk, but it leaves the much larger moderate risk group untouched, so it prevents fewer total cases than a population wide shift.
- Early diagnosis and treatment of identified cases: This is secondary prevention. It manages disease once it has already started, it does not stop new cases from developing in the first place.
- Individual disease based vertical programmes: Running separate programmes for each disease ignores the shared risk factors behind most non-communicable diseases, so it duplicates effort instead of tackling the common causes together.
The population based approach wins because non-communicable diseases share common, modifiable risk factors, and a small improvement spread across everyone adds up to a bigger drop in total disease than treating only a high risk minority.
Let's summarize:
- Population approach: shifts everyone's risk a little, prevents the most disease, is primary prevention.
- High risk approach: helps a few people a lot, but misses most future cases.
So the preferred approach for non-communicable disease control is the population based strategy.