**Background:** Community organizing aims to bring people together to act on common concerns, develop community ownership, and empower them for the common good. Health initiatives that genuinely engage communities are more likely to succeed. However, no published study had consolidated the frameworks, models, and processes used in community organizing initiatives that advance health. This scoping review aimed to answer: (1) What models, frameworks, and processes have been used in community organizing initiatives that advance health? (2) What target health behaviors or topics have community organizing initiatives addressed?
**Methods:** The review followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Three databases (SCOPUS, Sociological Abstracts, Google Scholar) were searched. Studies were eligible if they had a clear reference to community organizing as essential, related to health/wellbeing/social determinants of health, and specifically mentioned a theory/model/framework. No limits on publication date, study design, or language. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate by all authors. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 18 was used for quality appraisal.
**Key Results:** Of 5044 initially identified studies, 38 met inclusion criteria. 33 were conducted in the United States, 2 in the UK, and 1 each in Canada, Japan, and South Africa. Target populations included children/youth (11 studies), general population (6), marginalized groups (6), older adults (5), and others. Studies were published between 1978 and 2021, with 63% (n=17) in the last ten years. Study designs included case reports/studies (n=9), qualitative (n=9), project evaluations (n=7), prospective/longitudinal (n=4), quasi-experimental (n=4), community randomized trials (n=3), and others. The review identified 22 different frameworks/models/processes. Common frameworks included: Community Organizing Model (e.g., Cheadle 2009, Bosma 2005), Collective Impact (e.g., Poole 1997, Salem 2005, Hilgendorf 2016, Perry 2000), Alinsky-style/IAF organizing (e.g., Hays 2003, Subica 2016), Community-Based Participatory Research (e.g., Bauermeister 2017, Kang 2015, Ross 2011), and Socio-Ecological Model (e.g., Cheadle 2010, Weeks 2013). Other frameworks included Rothman's locality development model, implementation science frameworks, community needs assessment methodology, and green care theory. Most studies (32/38) reported positive changes in health outcomes. For example, Bryant et al. (2010) found female participants were 29% more likely to be physically active 4+ days/week (OR=1.29, p=0.040) and 42% more likely 6-7 days/week (OR=1.42, p=0.0041) in 2004, increasing to 80% (OR=1.80, p<0.0001) three years later. Perry et al. (2000) reported a 20% reduction in past-month drinking and 30% reduction in past-week drinking among intervention students. Quality appraisal using MMAT showed high quality for qualitative studies (13/16 met all criteria) and mixed methods (2/2 met all criteria), but only 2/14 quantitative studies met all criteria.
**Clinical Implications:** Community organizing is a promising approach for health initiatives, with consistent positive outcomes across diverse populations and health topics. The variation in frameworks suggests no single gold standard, but common themes (partnerships, empowerment, capacity building) are critical for success. Most studies were short-term; only 18/38 mentioned sustainability beyond the research period. Future research should focus on long-term sustainability, standardized implementation and evaluation guidelines, and expanding community organizing beyond the United States. The bottom-up approach of community organizing is particularly valuable for marginalized communities often overlooked by top-down initiatives.