Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a highly contagious viral respiratory illness associated with hypoxia and dyspnea. Many of those who contracted and recovered from SARS during the 2002–2003 outbreak reported persistent physical, psychological, and cognitive difficulties. Here, we investigated the residual influences of SARS on cognition for a subset of healthcare professionals who recovered and were referred for neuropsychological evaluation through their workplace insurance.

Twenty-eight healthcare professionals were evaluated on neuropsychological and mood functioning approximately 1.5 years post-recovery from a severe respiratory illness. Test scores were compared with age-matched normative data, and correlations were examined between mood, self-report memory scales, subjective complaints (e.g., poor concentration, pain, fatigue), illness severity (i.e., length of hospitalization, oxygen use during hospital stay), and cognitive performance.

Participants performed within age expectations on the majority of cognitive measures including overall memory ability. Although processing speed was generally within normal limits, 43% showed significant speed–accuracy trade-offs favoring accuracy over maintaining speed. Deficits were observed on measures of complex attention, such as working memory and the ability to sustain attention under conditions of distraction. Participants endorsed poorer memory ability than same-age peers on a meta-memory measure and mild to moderate depression and anxiety symptoms. Objective test performance was largely uncorrelated with self-reports, mood, or illness severity, except for moderate correlations between complex attention and participants’ subjective ratings of Everyday Task-Oriented Memory.

These findings demonstrate specific long-term cognitive deficits associated with SARS and provide further evidence of the cognitive effects of hypoxic illnesses.

How the productivity and careers of KL2 scholars compare with scholars receiving individual K-awards is unknown.

The productivity of KL2 scholars (n=21) at our institution was compared with that of K08 (n=34) and K23 (n=26) scholars.

KL2 and K23 scholars had greater productivity than K08 scholars (p=0.01). Professional advancement was similar among groups.

At our institution, scholarly productivity and professional advancement did not differ by type of K-award.