While I applaud the success of this program, this specific article is a good reminder of why it’s important to read critically.
> The programme, which cost $375m (£297m), is credited with an important role in the subsequent decline in India’s HIV status.
Why passive voice here? What authority credited the organization’s work in this way?
On a closer read, it becomes obvious that there are no primary or secondary sources quoted except the author of this book and anecdotes presented therein; essentially, this is no more than a book review. Is there a larger story here? Are there any suggestions or criticisms that suggest this may not be an optimal approach?
As submarines [0] go, this is a pretty harmless and feel-good one. But keep an eye out for articles with similar structure that seek to shape your opinions.