Background Pathogen genomics plays a central role in infectious disease surveillance and outbreak response. However, information about available training initiatives remains fragmented, limiting visibility into how programmes are structured, delivered, and assessed. Methods We conducted a structured survey to characterise pathogen genomics training initiatives identified through the PHA4GE Training and Workforce Development Working Group and affiliated professional networks. Results Eighty-one courses were analysed representing pathogen genomics training initiatives from 17 countries. Over half (52%) targeted academic or research audiences and 46% targeted public health professionals. Majority of courses were delivered as short, limited-duration standalone courses. Beginner-level courses accounted for 58% of offerings, whereas only 6% were classified as advanced. Bioinformatics or genomic data analysis was widely represented (72%), while specialised areas such as biostatistics and systems administration were less frequently included. Nearly half (48%) of courses focused on broadly applicable genomic methods rather than being restricted to a single pathogen. Among courses centred on specific organisms, viral pathogen themes were most commonly represented. Over one-third of courses (38%) did not include structured assessments, with only 7% incorporating quizzes or exams. Most courses relied on local computing resources such as laptops or desktops during delivery (93%). Use of high-performance computing (HPC) and cloud platforms was limited during training but was higher after training, with 37% and 39% of courses indicating use, respectively. Conclusion This landscape analysis identifies structural patterns, including geographic concentration of providers, predominance of introductory formats, variability in assessment practices and in the use of advanced computing infrastructure across training phases. The findings provide empirical insight into characteristics of pathogen genomics training that may inform efforts to strengthen coordinated and sustainable workforce development strategies.
Matimba et al. (Wed,) studied this question.