ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article

Suicidal behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic: Results from cross-sectional surveys of Brazilian adults from 2020 to 2022

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 29 Aug 2025
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to analyze the predictive capacity of fear of Covid-19, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and pandemic year on suicidal behaviors in the years 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Methods

The total sample consisted of 7,746 adults from all regions of the country and over 1,300 Brazilian cities, with an average age of 34 years. The research instruments used were the Fear of Covid-19 Scale (FCV-19S), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire Scale (PHQ-9), and a question assessing the absence, presence of suicidal ideation, and suicide planning or attempts. Data analysis was conducted using multinomial logistic regression.

Results

The study’s key findings revealed that fear of Covid-19 (severe [OR = 0.696]), along with varying levels of anxiety (mild [OR = 2.183], moderate [OR = 2.436], severe [OR = 2.757]) and depression (mild [OR = 2.831], moderate [OR = 4.769], severe [OR = 10.660]), were significantly associated with suicidal ideation. Predictors for suicide planning and attempts included the year (2022 [OR = 1.297]), fear of Covid-19 (moderate [OR = 0.614], severe [OR = 0.445]), anxiety (mild [OR = 2.253], moderate [OR = 2.988], severe [OR = 3.577]), and depression (mild [OR = 3.021], moderate [OR = 8.189], severe [OR = 40.363]).

Discussion

These findings underscore the importance of ongoing monitoring of the pandemic’s impact, as mental health surveillance remains essential for shaping effective policies to address suicidal behavior.

Keywords

Covid-19, suicidal behavior, fear of covid-19, anxiety, depression, Advanced statistical analysis, Suicide

1. Introduction

Even by early 2024, the Covid-19 pandemic remains a significant public health Iconcern, particularly due to its long-term psychological and social impacts (National Institutes of Health, 2024; World Health Organization, 2023a). Although global infection and mortality rates have declined with widespread vaccination (Rahmani et al., 2022; World Health Organization, 2023a), Covid-19 continues to affect healthcare systems, especially in Brazil (Brasil. Ministério da Saúde., 2023b; World Health Organization et al., 2023b). Understanding its repercussions is crucial, particularly regarding mental health and suicidal behavior, which became more prominent concerns between 2020 and 2022.

Suicide prevention has been a global public health priority since the World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted it in 2014 (World Health Organization, 2023d) yet, only a fraction of WHO member countries have implemented national strategies. Brazil adopted its National Policy for the Prevention of Self-Harm and Suicide in 2019 (Brasil. Lei, 2019), shortly before the onset of the pandemic. This public health crisis reignited the urgency of suicide prevention, especially as prevalence patterns shifted during the pandemic’s most critical phases (Pan American Health Organization, 2020; Yan et al., 2023).

In Brazil, the pandemic unfolded in three major waves, marked by peaks in mortality during mid-2020, early 2021, and early 2022. Regional disparities were notable, with initial impacts strongest in the North and Northeast, and the third wave showing the highest rates in the South. The launch of a national vaccination campaign in early 2021 helped reduce fatalities, though morbidity remained high (Moura et al., 2022).

Suicidal behavior includes a spectrum of actions such as ideation, planning, attempts, and completed suicide (Nock et al., 2008a; World Health Organization, 2023d). Globally, around 700,000 people die by suicide each year (World Health Organization, 2023c). While emerging research has examined the effects of Covid-19 on suicide-related outcomes, findings remain inconsistent (Pirkis et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2023). Environmental stressors—such as those imposed by a global pandemic—are known to increase psychological distress and may elevate suicide risk (Faro et al., 2020).

Among these stressors, fear has played a central role. Defined as an adaptive response to perceived threat, fear can be protective but also harmful when excessive or prolonged (Ahorsu et al., 2020; Harper et al., 2021). Studies have linked fear of Covid-19 to increased compliance with health measures (Harper et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2021) but also to greater anxiety, depression, and suicidal behavior in countries like Taiwan and Spain (Alimoradi et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2022; Şimşir et al., 2022; Soto-Sanz et al., 2021).

The pandemic has also contributed to a global rise in mental health issues. Depression and anxiety—both strong predictors of suicidal behavior—increased significantly worldwide during the pandemic years (Cheng et al., 2023; Daniali et al., 2023; World Health Organization, 2022a). In Brazil, studies from mid-2020 found moderate to severe anxiety in over 80% of cases and depression in 68% (Goularte et al., 2021).

Given these findings, this study aimed to assess how fear of Covid-19, anxiety, depression, and the specific year of the pandemic (2020, 2021, or 2022) predict suicidal behaviors in a sample of Brazilian adults.

2. Materials and Method

2.1 Participants

The final sample consisted of responses to three cross-sectional surveys in the years 2020 (n = 4,803), 2021 (n = 1,477), and 2022 (n = 1,466), totaling 7,746 adults. The average age was 34.0 years (SD = 12.9; Min = 18 and Max = 70), with the majority being female (87.6%; n = 6,785), having a higher level of education (83.8%; n = 6,494), and identifying as white individuals (55.0%; n = 4,261). Participants were residents of approximately 1,300 Brazilian cities. The Northeast region was predominant (44.3%; n = 3,433), followed by the Southeast (34.3%; n = 2,657), South (12.3%; n = 950), Central-West (5.9%; n = 454), and North (3.3%; n = 252). Table 1 presents the distribution of all the collected sociodemographic data.

Table 1. Sociodemographic profile (Brazil, n = 7,746).

VariablesTotal (n = 7,746)2020 (n = 4,803)2021 (n = 1,477) 2022 (n = 1,466)
Age M (SD) 34.0 (12.9)31.3 (11.8)39.1 (13.4)37.8 (13.4)
F% (n)F% (n)F% (n) F% (n)
Sex
 Male12.4 (961)13.1 (628)10.1 (149)12.6 (184)
 Female87.6 (6,785)86.9 (4,175)89.9 (1,328)87.4 (1,282)
Skin color
 White55.0 (4,261)52.3 (2,513)67.5 (997)51.2 (751)
 Black10.0 (774)11.6 (555)6.8 (100)8.1 (119)
 Parda35.0 (2,711)36.1 (1,735)25.7 (380)40.7 (596)
Educational level
 Up to elementary school0.7 (57)0.5 (22)0.4 (6)2.0 (29)
 High school15.4 (1,195)23.2 (1,112)1.2 (17)4.5 (66)
 Higher school83.8 (6,494)76.4 (3,669)98.4 (1,454)93.5 (1,371)

2.2 Instruments

The Fear of Covid-19 Scale (FCV-19S) (Ahorsu et al., 2020) is a unidimensional scale containing seven items using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score is obtained by summing the items, with totals ranging from 7 to 35 points. In the adaptation study for Brazilian Portuguese, satisfactory psychometric results were found (Faro et al., 2022), and the level of fear was classified into three categories: 7 to 19 points as mild fear, 20 to 26 points as moderate, and 27 points and above as severe. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.87, and McDonald’s omega (ω) was 0.88.

The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale - 7 (GAD-7) (Spitzer et al., 2006) consists of seven items, which are answered on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day) points. The total score ranges from 0 to 21, and the level of anxiety is classified as minimal (0-4 points), mild (5-9 points), moderate (10-14 points), and severe (15-21 points). The psychometric properties and validity evidence for this scale in Brazil, assessed in its Brazilian Portuguese version, are considered satisfactory (Moreno et al., 2016). In this study, satisfactory internal consistency indices were found (α = 0.89; ω = 0.89).

The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (Kroenke et al., 2001) consists of 9 items using a scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). The total score ranges from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 27. The stratification of scores proposes four categories: 0-4 as minimal, 5-9 as mild, 10-14 as moderate, and 15-27 as severe. The scale has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric characteristics in the Brazilian population in its Brazilian Portuguese version (Bergerot et al., 2014). In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega were both 0.90.

All Likert scales were analyzed using the simple summation of responses, followed by classification in accordance with the indicated references. Additionally, we ensured that the scoring adhered to established guidelines to maintain the integrity of our analysis.

The sociodemographic questionnaire includes questions about the participant’s sex (female or male), age (in years), skin color (white, black, parda [mixed ethnic heritage]), education level (up to elementary school, high school, or higher school), and city of residence. Participants were asked if at any point during the pandemic they had thoughts, plans, and/or attempts to end their own life, with the following response options: (0) Never, (1) I had only a brief passing thought, (2) I had a plan to end my life at least once, but I didn’t attempt it, (3) I attempted to end my life, but didn’t really want to die, and (4) I attempted to end my life and actually wanted to die.

2.3 Procedures

Participant recruitment was conducted through convenience sampling, using social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. Posts on these platforms included links directing users to the research survey. Individuals who clicked on the link and voluntarily chose to participate became part of the study sample. This approach allowed the researchers to engage participants who were willing to take part in the research of their own accord. Only individuals aged 18 or older and those who agreed to the informed consent form, were eligible for the study. The consent was obtained electronically through the survey platform before the questionnaire was made available, which was presented at the beginning of the online questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, and anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed in accordance with ethical standards. Data collection took place during three different periods of the pandemic in Brazil: June 2020, March 2021, and May 2022. The current findings have been reported in a preprint (Faro et al., 2024).

2.4 Data Analyses

The Jamovi software (jamovi project, 2025, version 2.2.5) was used for data analyses. A hierarchical multinomial logistic regression was conducted with suicidal behavior as the dependent variable. This variable was recoded into the following groups:(1) absence of suicidal behavior; (2) presence of suicidal ideation; (3) suicide planning and/or attempt. The explanatory variables included the year of data collection (2020, 2021, 2022), and the levels of fear of Covid-19 (7-9 mild, 20-26 moderate, 27-35 severe), anxiety (0-4 no symptoms, 5-9 mild, 10-14 moderate, 15-21 severe), and depression (0-9 no symptoms, 10-14 mild, 15-19 moderate, 20-27 severe), added in this order to the model. Model fit evaluation criteria included the initial and final -2 log likelihood, the significance criteria (p < 0.05) of the odds ratios (OR), the model’s predictive ability (correctly predicted cases, with values desired to be above 50%), the X2 (expected to be significant at p < 0.05), the Pearson Goodness of Fit X2 (expected value to be non-significant), and the Pseudo R-Square index (higher values indicate better fit). Odds ratios (OR) values below 1 were converted using the formula 1/OR for standardized result reporting.

2.5 Ethical consideration

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. The study was approved by the National Commission of Research Ethics (CONEP) (Approval number: 3.955.180, Date: 01/05/2020). The consent was obtained electronically through the survey platform before the questionnaire was made available, which was presented at the beginning of the online questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, and anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed in accordance with ethical standards.

3. Results

Over the three-year period of the study, the average score of the Fear of Covid-19 Scale (FCV-19S) was 22.6 (standard deviation [SD] = 6.05; median [Mdn] = 23.0), with the lowest average score in 2022 (Mdn = 20.0; mean [M] = 20.2; SD = 6.23) and the highest in 2021 (Mdn = 24.0; M = 23.9; SD = 5.6). In terms of severity, severe fear was proportionally higher in 2021 (34.6%, n = 511), as well as moderate fear in 2021 (44.3%, n = 654). The mild level had the highest value in 2022 (45.4%, n = 666). In total, there was a predominance of moderate fear (42.2%; n = 3,266). The GAD-7 had an overall average of 11.5 points (SD = 5.78; Mdn = 12.0), with the highest value in 2022 (Mdn = 13.0; M = 12.0; SD = 5.69). Only 12.5% (n = 970) did not exhibit significant anxiety symptoms, defined as moderate to severe anxiety, over the three years surveyed. The proportion of individuals classified with severe anxiety was highest in 2022 (39.0%; n = 572). In contrast, the number of participants at the mild level decreased from 2020 to 2022, dropping from 29.7% (n = 1,425) to 24.0% (n = 352).

The average score of the PHQ-9 was 13.4 (SD = 7.44; Mdn = 13.0). In the total sample, 34.5% (n = 2,671) reported no significant depression symptoms, while the highest percentage of those with symptoms fell into the severe category (25.4%; n = 1,966). The highest average score was observed in 2022 (Mdn = 14.0; M = 13.9; SD = 7.61). The highest number of respondents with a severe score occurred in 2022 (29.7%; n = 435), the same year with the lowest number of respondents without depression (32.8%; n = 481). The presence of suicidal ideation, planning, or attempt occurred in 32.1% of the total sample (n = 2,488). Specifically, suicidal ideation fluctuated slightly, hovering around 20% from 2020 to 2022. However, suicide planning and/or attempts nearly doubled in value, going from almost 10% in 2020 to almost 17% in 2022. Additional details and values obtained in the samples are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of Suicidal Behavior Categories, Patient Health Questionnaire Scale (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), and Fear of Covid-19 Scale (FCV-19S) scores.

VariablesTotal20202021 2022
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
FCV-19S score 23.0; 22.6 (6.05)23.0; 22.9 (5.92)24.0; 23.9 (5.6)20.0; 20.2 (6.23)
GAD score 12.0; 11.5 (5.78)11.0; 11.2 (5.83)12.0; 11.9 (5.64)13.0; 12.0 (5.69)
PHQ score 13.0; 13.4 (7.44)13.0; 13.2 (7.39)13.0; 13.3 (7.40)14.0; 13.9 (7.61)
F% (n) F% (n) F% (n) F% (n)
Fear of Covid-19
 Mild30.3 (2,349)28.5 (1,371)21.1 (312)45.4 (666)
 Moderate42.2 (3,266)42.6 (2,048)44.3 (654)38.5 (564)
 Severe27.5 (2,131)28.8 (1,384)34.6 (511)16.1 (236)
Anxiety symptoms
 No12.5 (970)13.9 (666)9.9 (146)10.8 (158)
 Mild28.1 (2,173)29.7 (1,425)26.8 (396)24.0 (352)
 Moderate24.2 (1,878)23.1 (1,114)25.7 (380)26.2 (384)
 Severe35.2 (2,725)33.3 (1,598)37.6 (555)39.0 (572)
Depression symptoms
 No34.6 (2,677)35.4 (1,702)33.4 (494)32.8 (481)
 Mild19.7 (1,524)19.3 (928)21.7 (321)18.8 (275)
 Moderate20.3 (1,576)20.9 (1,001)20.3 (300)18.8 (275)
 Severe25.4 (1,969)24.4 (1,172)24.5 (362)29.7 (435)
During the quarantine/social isolation, did you ever think about killing yourself or try to kill yourself?
 Never67.9 (5,258)69.8 (3,352)67.6 (998)61.9 (908)
 I had only a brief passing thought20.8 (1,608)20.5 (986)21.0 (310)21.3 (312)
 I made a plan to kill myself at least once, but I didn’t try9.6 (745)8.7 (415)9.6 (143)12.8 (187)
 I tried to kill myself, but I didn’t want to die0.8 (62)0.6 (30)0.5 (8)1.6 (24)
 I tried to kill myself, and I really hoped to die0.9 (73)0.4 (20)1.2 (18)2.4 (35)
Suicidal behavior
 No67.9 (5,258)69.8 (3,352)67.6 (998)61.9 (908
 Ideation20.8 (1,608)20.5 (986)21.0 (310)21.3 (312)
 Planning or attempt11.4 (880)9.7 (465)11.4 (168)16.8 (246)

3.1 Multinomial logistic regression

The final model ( Table 3) demonstrated an acceptable fit at all levels (p < 0.001). The model explained 20.7% of the variance (Nagelkerke’s R2 = 0.207), and the correct predictive capacity had a total value of 34%. All the variables included remained as statistically significant in the final model.

Table 3. Hierarchical Multinomial Multiple Regression - Reference group ”did not present suicidal ideation, planning, or attempt” (Brazil, n = 7,746).

Suicidal behavior Predictor Odds Ratio (CI95% LB-UB) p-value
Block 1 (R 2 = 0.005)
Suicidal ideation 2021 – 20201.056 (0.913 – 1.222)0.465
2022 – 20201.168 (1.009 – 1.353)0.038
Suicide planning and/or attempt 2021 – 20201.221 (1.010 – 1.476)0.039
2022 – 20201.953 (1.646 – 2.317)<0.001
Block 2 (R 2 = 0.015)
Suicidal ideation 2021 – 20201.015 (0.876 – 1.175)0.843
2022 – 20201.288 (1.109 – 1.495)<0.001
Moderate fear – Mild fear1.402 (1.218 – 1.615)<0.001
Severe fear – Mild fear1.876 (1.610 – 2.185)<0.001
Suicide planning and/or attempt 2021 – 20201.180 (0.975 – 1.428)0.089
2022 – 20202.122 (1.782 – 2.527)<0.001
Moderate fear– Mild fear1.056 (1.782 – 2.527)0.549
Severe fear – Mild fear1.758 (1.457 – 2.121)<0.001
Block 3 (R 2 = 0.111)
Suicidal ideation vs. Does not have suicidal ideation or suicide planning and/or attempt 2021 – 20200.974 (0.837 – 1.133)0.734
2022 – 20201.033 (0.883 – 1.207)0.683
Moderate fear – Mild fear0.919 (0.790 – 1.069) [1.088 (0.935 – 1.265)]*0.272
Severe fear – Mild fear0.759 (0.638 – 0.903) [1.317 (1.107 – 1.567)]*0.002
Mild anxiety – No anxiety3.486 (2.535 – 4.794)<0.001
Moderate anxiety – No anxiety7.028 (5.111 – 9.663)<0.001
Severe anxiety – No anxiety13.515 (9.839 – 18.563)<0.001
Suicide planning and/or attempt vs. Does not have suicidal ideation or suicide planning and/or attempt 2021 – 20201.118 (0.917 – 1.363)0.268
2022 – 20201.562 (1.297 – 1.880)<0.001
Moderate fear – Mild fear0.619 (0.510 – 0.750) [1.615 (1.333 – 1.960)]*<0.001
Severe fear – Mild fear0.530 (0.428 – 0.655) [1.886 (1.526 – 2.336)]*<0.001
Mild anxiey – No anxiety4.485 (2.489 – 8.078)<0.001
Moderate anxiety – No anxiety14.597 (8.220 – 25.916)<0.001
Severe anxiety – No anxiety41.533 (23.513 – 73.364)<0.001
Block 4 (R 2 = 0.207)
Suicidal ideation vs. Does not have suicidal ideation or suicide planning and/or attempt 2021 – 20201.062 (0.907 – 1.243)0.453
2022 – 20201.087 (0.924 – 1.278)0.313
Moderate fear– Mild fear0.917 (0.784 – 1.072) [1.090 (0.932 – 1.275)]*0.280
Severe fear – Mild fear0.696 (0.581 – 0.833) [1.436 (1.200 – 1.721)]*<0.001
Mild anxiey – No anxiety2.183 (1.566 – 3.042)<0.001
Moderate anxiety – No anxiety2.436 (1.719 – 3.451)<0.001
Severe anxiety – No anxiety2.757 (1.928 – 3.943)<0.001
Mild depression – No depression2.831 (2.290 – 3.499)<0.001
Moderate depression – No depression4.769 (3.837 – 5.927)<0.001
Severe depression – No depression10.660 (8.492 – 13.382)<0.001
Suicide planning and/or attempt vs. Does not have suicidal ideation or suicide planning and/or attempt 2021 – 20201.297 (1.050 – 1.602)0.016
2022 – 20201.644 (1.346 – 2.007)<0.001
Moderate fear– Mild fear0.614 (0.499 – 0.755) [1.560 (1.324 – 2.004)]*<0.001
Severe fear – Mild fear0.445 (0.354 – 0.559) [2.247 (1.788 – 2.824)]*<0.001
Mild anxiey – No anxiety2.253 (1.210 – 4.194)0.010
Moderate anxiety – No anxiety2.988 (1.591 – 5.613)<0.001
Severe anxiety – No anxiety3.577 (1.897 – 6.741)<0.001
Mild depression – No depression3.021 (1.990 – 4.588)<0.001
Moderate depression – No depression8.189 (5.516 – 12.155)<0.001
Severe depression – No depression40.363 (27.341 – 59.587)<0.001

* 1/OR (italic).

Block 1: Year

The first block, which included the year of data collection, demonstrated an adequate fit indicator [χ2 = 56.4 (4); p < 0.001]. In 2022, there was an additive impact, increasing the odds of being in the group with suicidal ideation by 16.8% (OR = 1.168; p = 0.038) and nearly doubling the odds of suicide planning and/or attempt (OR = 1.953; p < 0.001) compared to the year 2020 (OR = 1.221; p < 0.039). There was no statistically significant difference in suicidal ideation between 2021 and 2020 (p ≤ 0.05).

Block 2: Fear of Covid-19

The second block also showed an adequate fit indicator for the FCV-19S scale [χ2 = 95.4 (4); p <0.001]. Individuals with severe fear (OR = 1.876; p < 0.001) or moderate fear (OR = 1.402; p < 0.001) had a higher chance of being in the group with suicidal ideation compared to those with mild fear. In this block, the year variable remained significant for 2022, and there was an increase in the odds for both suicidal ideation and suicide planning and/or attempts.

Block 3: Anxiety

In this block, there were also appropriate fit indicators for the GAD-7 scale [χ2 = 987.5 (6); p < 0.001]. However, in this block, the direction of the FCV-19S had reversed compared to the second block. The severe fear group had a lower chance of being in the groups with suicidal ideation and suicide planning and/or attempts when compared to mild fear by 31.7% (1/OR = 1.317; p = 0.002) and 88.6% (1/OR = 1.886; p < 0.001), respectively. The year variable was only significant for regarding suicide planning and/or attempts for 2022, showing a reduction in odds compared to the second block by almost two times to 56.2%, when comparing the 2022 to 2020 (OR = 1.562; p < 0.001).

The anxiety variable increased the odds of suicidal ideation from three and a half times at the mild anxiety level (OR = 3.486; p < 0.001) to over 13 times at the severe anxiety level (OR = 13.515; p < 0.001). For suicide planning and/or attempts, this range was from four and a half times at the mild anxiety level (OR = 4.485; p < 0.001) to over 41 times at the severe anxiety level (OR = 41.533; p < 0.001), compared to the group without anxiety.

Block 4: Depression

The fit indicators were significant for the PHQ-9 scale [χ2 = 1015.5 (6); p < 0.001]. The year 2022 had an increase of 64.4% for suicide planning and/or attempts (OR = 1.644; p < 0.001) compared to the year 2020. The fear variable remained significant in the following models. The more severe the fear, the lower the chance of being among those with suicidal ideation, with values of 43.6% (1/OR = 1.436; p < 0.001) for severe fear compared to mild fear. The same pattern was observed for suicide planning and suicidal ideation, with the values of 1/OR increasing from 1.886 to over two times (1/OR = 2.247; p < 0.001) for severe fear compared to mild fear. Moderate fear remained stable in terms of values from the third to the fourth block.

In the fourth block, the adjusted odds of the anxiety variable decreased compared to the third block, specifically for suicidal ideation. The results ranged from two times (OR = 2.183; p < 0.001) to approximately three times (OR = 2.757; p < 0.001). For suicide planning and/or attempts, the behavior of the variable was the same, with results between two times (OR = 2.253; p < 0.001) and over three times (OR = 3.577; p < 0.001).

With the addition of the depression variable in this block and the adjustment of odds for suicidal ideation, the probabilities ranged from almost three times (OR = 2.831; p < 0.001) to over ten times (OR = 10.660; p < 0.001) in comparison to the group without depression. The same pattern occurred when considering the suicide planning and/or attempts group, with the odds increasing from three times (OR = 3.021; p < 0.001) to over 40 times (OR = 40.363; p < 0.001) when compared to the group without depression.

In summary, the cumulative impact of 2022 compared to 2020 was significant for suicidal behaviors in the first block. In the second block, the exposure factor of fear of Covid-19 was noteworthy, as the group of people with severe fear exhibited lower chances of displaying suicidal behaviors than those with mild fear. In the third block, the fear of Covid-19 reversed the direction of the relationship with the inclusion of anxiety and became a protective factor for the suicide behaviors. Moreover, the presence of anxiety in this block increased the chances of displaying suicide planning and/or attempts from over four times to 41 times compared to the group without anxiety. Finally, in the fourth block, the odds of anxiety were adjusted compared to the previous block. Considering the suicide planning and/or attempts group, the presence of depression increased the odds from three times to over 40 times compared to the group without depression.

Evaluations of hierarchical multinomial logistic analyses and various indicators (VIF, tolerance, residuals, and the discrepancy of OR in relation to their confidence intervals) did not indicate unsatisfactory quality of the findings. Figure 1 represents the last block of analysis, containing the adjusted ORs and their respective confidence intervals.

e9fd7ce3-c221-40a9-b67e-1dcdc501162c_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Odds ratio and confidence intervals of the fourth block (last model) - Multinomial logistic regression for suicidal behavior (Brazil, n = 7,746).

Notes. Graphical representations of OR and 95% CI in block 4 by variable. Panel 1A: Year of Pandemic. Panel 1B: Fear of Covid-19. Panel 1C: Anxiety Symptomatology. Panel 1D: Depression Symptomatology. “a” indicates statistically non-significant associations; all other values are statistically significant.

4. Discussion

This study analyzed the predictive capacity of fear of Covid-19, anxiety, and depression on suicidal behaviors from 2020 to 2022. The average FCV- 19S score (M = 22.6; SD = 6.04) was higher than the global average reported in a meta-analysis across 36 countries (M = 13.11) (Alimoradi et al., 2022).

The peak of fear occurred in 2021, coinciding with the most severe phase of the pandemic in Brazil. This aligns with national mortality records and the healthcare system collapse (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2023; Instituto Butantan, 2021). By 2022, fear levels decreased, likely reflecting progress in vaccination and the easing of restrictions (Brasil. Ministério da Saúde., 2023a; Castro-Nunes and Ribeiro, 2022; Instituto Butantan, 2022; Poiatti and Pedroso, 2023).

Anxiety and depression scores increased over the years, with 2022 showing the highest averages and severity rates. Significant symptoms were present in most of the sample (anxiety: 87.5%; depression: 65.4%). This is consistent with studies reporting higher prevalence in Latin America during the pandemic (Torrente et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022), influenced by high mortality, socioeconomic instability, and political distrust.

From 2020 to 2022, anxiety rose from 11.2 to 12.0, and depression from 13.2 to 13.9. The persistence of psychological distress suggests depletion of coping resources over time (Cohen et al., 2019; Pfefferbaum and North, 2020; Vadivel et al., 2021). Suicidal behaviors also increased, especially planning/attempting suicide, which rose from 9.7% to 16.8%. While early stages may have been marked by collective resilience, longer-term stress appeared to heighten vulnerability (Sinyor et al., 2022; Ueda et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2023).

4.1 Predictive variables of the suicidal behavior

Suicidal ideation increased by 16.8% between 2020 and 2022, and suicide planning/attempt nearly doubled. These findings align with research warning of delayed mental health consequences of the pandemic (Bigoni et al., 2022; Dubé et al., 2021; Efstathiou et al., 2022; Gramacho and Turgeon, 2021). Initially, fear of Covid-19 was associated with higher suicidal ideation. However, once anxiety was included in the regression model, fear became a protective factor. This suppressor effect suggests that while persistent fear may initially be harmful, it may promote adaptive behaviors when controlling for anxiety (Harper et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2021; Smith et al., 1992). The fear variable maintained its relevance across years, although with lower explanatory power.

Anxiety was strongly associated with suicidal ideation and behavior, increasing odds by up to tenfold for ideation and over 40 times for planning/attempting suicide. Given that nearly one-third of adults experienced anxiety during the pandemic (Delpino et al., 2022), this reinforces the urgent need for targeted mental health support.

Depression emerged as the most significant predictor. Its inclusion in the model reduced the impact of year, fear, and anxiety variables. Suicidal ideation odds ranged from three to ten times higher depending on symptom severity; for planning/attempting suicide, the risk increased by over 40 times. These findings highlight the need to prioritize depression in suicide prevention strategies (Ali et al., 2022; Daniali et al., 2023; García-Iglesias et al., 2022; Mann et al., 2005; Nock et al., 2008b).

This study supports global findings on the impact of the pandemic on mental health and suicidal behavior (Mann et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2022; Vandamme et al., 2023). The model’s total predictive capacity reached 34% when combining all variables. Notably, fear showed dual roles—risk factor when isolated, protective when anxiety was included—requiring nuanced interpretation.

Limitations include the use of a convenience, online sample and the inability to control for variables like age, gender, and socioeconomic status due to sample imbalance. However, the large sample (from over 1,300 cities) partially mitigates concerns about representativeness.

Although Covid-19 is no longer considered a public health emergency (World Health Organization, 2023d), its mental health repercussions persist (Penninx et al., 2022; World Health Organization, 2023d). Suicide prevention remains essential. Individuals with depressive and anxiety symptoms—key predictors in this study—should receive prioritized support, in line with WHO guidelines (World Health Organization, 2022).

Ethics and consent

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. The study was approved by the National Commission of Research Ethics (CONEP) (Approval number: 3.955.180, Date: 01/05/2020). The consent was obtained electronically through the survey platform before the questionnaire was made available, which was presented at the beginning of the online questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, and anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed in accordance with ethical standards.

Software availability

  • Source code available from: https://www.jamovi.org

  • Archived source code available from: Not applicable. The jamovi software is open-source and publicly available; no custom code was developed for this study.

  • License: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later.

Declarations

Informed consent statement

All participants were informed about the objectives of the study and provided their consent prior to participation. Consent was obtained electronically through the survey platform before the questionnaire was made available. Participation was voluntary, and anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed in accordance with ethical standards.

Institutional review board statement: ☑

  • (a) ☑ The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by an Institutional Review Board/Ethics committee. See details under Methods.

  • (b) The study received an exemption from an Institutional Review Board/Ethics committee; See details under Methods.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

The author(s) declare that no generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the preparation of this manuscript.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 29 Aug 2025
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Faro A, Palhano D, dos Santos Silva L and Falk D. Suicidal behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic: Results from cross-sectional surveys of Brazilian adults from 2020 to 2022 [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2025, 14:835 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.167870.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 29 Aug 2025
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.