THE ORGANIZATION THAT PUBLISHED THE SUMMARY OF YOUR ARTICLE
Although a bit difficult to find, summary information about the Communication Initiative Network is provided at their website:
The Mission of the effort is described as follows:
“Convene the communication and media development, social and
behavioural change community for more effective local, national, and
international development action”
More insight into the organization and what it seeks to do comes from a description of the Executive Director, Warren Feek, at the website:
“Warren Feek is Executive Director of The Communication Initiative
Network and Partnership, a network of 100,000 people using media,
communication, social and behaviour change strategies to address
priority local, national and international Development issues.”
[bolded for emphasis]
It is hard to tell how the organization is funded and managed, but the partners page lists a large number of legitimate organizations in the international development field as partners.
These organizations include, the World Health Organization, the Wellcome Trust, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs (CCP) and many many others.
The network seems to publish/publicize research on a variety of topics related to international development, including but not limited to health.
THE SUMMARY OF YOUR ARTICLE
There appears to be chunks of text in the summary that are reproduced from the original article verbatim. Some of this identical text is delineated with quotation marks; some is not.
A single (elegant) Figure from the original article is reproduced twice in the summary. In one instance, the original article is cited as the source for the figure; in one instance, the original article is not cited. It is unclear whether permission to reproduce the Figure should have been obtained.
Your question about violating copyright seems apt.
It is not clear why they have asked you to “review” the article (and presumably approve or not approve it). At this point (2/11/2022), the material exists at the website without your having approved it.
Accessing the summary directly, it would be easy (IMHO) to conclude that the summary was authored by the authors of the original paper (you and your co-author).
BOTTOM LINE / OPINION
This is a legitimate organization that “publishes” and/or "publicizes" summaries of content taken from other journals. There does not appear to be an obvious profit motive in publishing and/or publicizing the summaries.
Exposure of previously published material by this organization at its website might bring it to attention of policymakers (or other interested parties) more quickly. This is an opinion.
“Approving” the “publication” of the summary that has problems with attribution might make a problem for you and your co-author, especially given the fact it is easy to conclude that you and your co-author (authors of the original paper) also authored the summary. This is an opinion.