Many genetic conditions present in childhood (Biesecker & Green, 2014) as undiagnosed conditions that require a "diagnostic odyssey" to define the cause (Friedman et al., 2006). However, the technological advances of genome-wide (whole genome or exome) sequencing (GWS) enable geneticists to test the entire genome at once. This may greatly reduce both time and expense (Ayuso, Millan, Mancheno, & Dal-Re, 2013), and provide a specific genetic diagnosis in at least 25% of cases (Yang et al., 2013), resulting in immediate benefits, such as more accurate genetic counseling, access to resources, and possible treatment.BackgroundWhile GWS can provide diagnoses, this testing often reveals incidental findings (IFs): unanticipated results unrelated to the primary concern (Ormond et al., 2010). IFs may predispose a patient to conditions ranging from trivial to potentially severe in the present or sometime in the future. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) therefore have the challenging task of communicating accurate and sufficient information about the benefits and potential adverse implications of GWS to facilitate families' testing decisions. Genetic counselors (GCs) have expressed challenges with the length, complexity, and content of the GWS consent process (Machini, Douglas, Braxton, Tsipis, & Kramer, 2014). Specifically, GCs had difficulty ensuring their patients accurately understood the benefits, limitations, potential results, and implications of GWS for themselves and their family members (Machini et al., 2014). GCs expressed interest in having access to resources related to guidelines on consent, result communication, ethical, and counseling issues (Machini et al., 2014). These challenges align with the recommendation of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), which states that HCPs who provide pediatric genetic testing need to have appropriate expertise and training in interpreting and communicating genetic information (Botkin et al., 2015). Furthermore, genetic HCPs should establish a long-term communication plan for all results, including, which individuals are involved in the communication and the staging of information (Botkin et al., 2015). HCPS should provide basic genetic counseling and must have appropriate knowledge and skills related to testing, interpreting and communicating GWS and its' results to patients and families (Botkin et al., 2015).In Canada, GWS has been carried out in the research setting for several years, and clinical GWS is becoming available. There are Canadian (Boycott et al., 2015), American (Green et al., 2013) and European (van El et al., 2013) professional recommendations for the use of clinical GWS. Canadian recommendations state that prior to testing, patients and families should undergo genetic counseling with a qualified person with a comprehensive understanding of clinical GWS (Boycott et al., 2015). The recommendations also state the inclusion of specific content to discuss during consent (Boycott et al., 2015). Given that GWS will ultimately impact patients, parents, and individuals, input is needed from them. In Europe and North America, parents have voiced concerns about GWS decision making, including the lengthy and often elaborate consent process (Rigter et al., 2013; Tabor et al., 2012), and the challenges of discussing complex concepts such as IFs (Levenseller et al., 2013). Research on parental perspectives has focused mainly on return of IFs or results (Daack-Hirsch et al., 2013; Kleiderman et al., 2013; Sapp et al., 2013; Townsend et al., 2012); however, exploration of what elements and supports parents perceive as important to their educational preparation, pretest discussion, counseling, and informed consent is sparse: we have little understanding of parents' perceptions of their decisional needs when making a choice about GWS for their child. Decisional needs are factors influencing decision making, including knowledge, expectations, values, support, resources, and individual characteristics (O'Connor, 2006). …