World War II was the last episode countries had seen schools and educational institutions go into lockdown around the same time, for the same reason (Luthra & Mackenzie, 2020). This changed in December 2019, when Wuhan Health Commission notified the National Health Commission, China Center for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization (WHO) of a cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology (Kakodkar et al., 2020). These patients presented a virus called novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), which rapidly spread out around the globe (Kakodkar et al., 2020; Rezaeetalab et al., 2020; WHO, 2020b). This rapid dissemination led millions of people in quarantine and lockdowns, affecting several pillars of society, which was translated into an unprecedent turbulence on societal systems, whether through the implementation of social distancing measures or the reorganization of public health systems (Neumeyer et al., 2020).

The emergence of COVID-19 crisis brings focus to entrepreneurship education (Loan et al., 2021; Neumeyer et al., 2020), since the compelled adaptation led the usual practical classes, hands-on activities and learning by doing process to another type of exposure (Campos et al., 2021; Moraes et al., 2021; Neumeyer et al., 2020; Rönkkö & Lepistö, 2015). This change could have resulted in distancing and less practical activities due to the virtual environment. At the same time, entrepreneurial education is considered as one of the influential forces in the venture creation process (Jena, 2020), just like entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which refers to an individual's belief in his/her capability to perform tasks and roles aimed at entrepreneurial outcomes (Newman et al., 2019), it also plays an important role in determining whether individuals pursue entrepreneurial careers (Newman et al., 2019). Another force is entrepreneurial intention, which is seen as a good predictor of the decision to become an entrepreneur (Fragoso et al., 2020). It represents the first step into a long chain of actions directed towards starting a business (Voda & Florea, 2019).

Scholars have acknowledged a positive relation between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Asimakopoulos et al., 2019; Fragoso et al., 2020; Moraes et al., 2018); entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial education (Ahmed et al., 2019; Atiya et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020), as well as entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial education (Amaral et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2019). However, literature has identified factors that may foster or inhibit entrepreneurial education (Jena, 2020; Pittaway & Edwards, 2012; Rideout & Gray, 2013; Shi et al., 2020; Stamboulis & Barlas, 2014; Vesper & Gartner, 1997). Such works highlight the effects of interventions in the learning and the new business creation process. Considering that entrepreneurial education and behavior is individually driven (Caliendo & Kritikos, 2011; Krakauer et al., 2018; Schmidt & Bohnenberger, 2009) and susceptible to environmental changes (Bullough & Renko, 2013; Koe, et al., 2012; Küttim et al., 2014; Newman et al., 2019), especially in the context of developing countries (Fischer et al., 2019; Guerrero, et al., 2018; Moraes et al., 2020), there is a need to assess entrepreneurship in turbulent environments, such as COVID-19 pandemic (Aldairany et al., 2018).

In the context of the pandemic, research has shown that the feelings generated, such as anxiety and fear, had a negative impact on entrepreneurial intention (Loan et al., 2021; Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2020) and self-efficacy (Loan et al., 2021). In addition, there is a lack of integration between crisis management, entrepreneurship, and covid-19 literature (Ratten, 2020, 2021). Therefore, this research addresses the fundamental gap of effects caused by the coronavirus pandemic (Yang et al., 2020) on the relationship amongst entrepreneurial education, self-efficacy and intention (Loan et al., 2021; Ratten, 2020, 2021; Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2020), in a specific context.

Moreover, once personal factors matter in the pursuit of entrepreneurship (Bullough & Renko, 2013), this article addresses the following research question: what is the COVID-19 pandemic effect on entrepreneurial behavior and in the supported importance perceived that a university should provide for entrepreneurship? In this manner, it is intended to analyze how the pandemic, with its confinement and drastic changes to people’s and organization’s daily life, affected the relationships between perceived university support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention.

This research contributes to entrepreneurship knowledge area by expanding the information about behavioral changes related to entrepreneurship in times of crisis and uncertainty. The impacts of the pandemic on entrepreneurship, especially its education, require further investigation (Nassif et al., 2020), as the outbreak has hit several countries and the outcome is still unpredictable (WHO, 2020b). Thus, this study is an interesting case because it assesses university students’ understanding about the effects of COVID-19 on their entrepreneurial behavior and on the received university support, in two main stages: before and during confinement.

From a practical standpoint, this study can contribute to the discussion of lockdowns and quarantines repercussions in entrepreneurial behavior and education, in addition to serve as support for professors and pedagogical staff in the disciplines remake and university environments.

The theoretical framework of this research is based on three main topics: the support of universities; the entrepreneurial behavior of students; and the coronavirus pandemic.

The empirical assessment of this research was developed through quantitative methodology, with the use of multivariate data analysis. Hair et al. (2019) state that Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) is a statistical model used for examining the prediction and explanation of the constructs and, also, it provides a common point between path modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Thus, it is an adequate approach to comprehend this research’s purpose, which aims at identifying whether the Coronavirus pandemic has influenced entrepreneurial behavior and perceived university support.

The conceptual model constructs (Perceived University Support, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, Entrepreneurial Intention and Before/During Confinement) were based in previous researches (Ahmed et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020; Moraes et al., 2018; Nassif et al., 2020; Newman et al., 2019; Rocha & Freitas, 2014; Saeed et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020), even though their relationship as a whole brings novelty to literature. Additionally, the questions regarding Perceived University Support and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy were based and adapted from Shi, et al. (2020) and Rocha, et al. (2014), the construct of entrepreneurial intention had as main reference the study of Saeed et al. (2015), while some indicators were developed by the authors.

A pre-test was carried out after formulating the hypotheses and developing the research conceptual model, to assess face validity in three types of audience, as suggested by Forza (2002). The first audience was three experts in entrepreneurial intention models, the second audience was three experts in structural equation modeling, and the third audience five students who were potential respondents to the questionnaire. At this stage, minor adjustments were made to the questionnaires.

Next, to evaluate the sample size and statistical power of the analysis, an analysis with the G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2009) was conducted and based on the recommendations by Chin and Newsted (1999), Cohen (1988) and Hair et al. (2019). Considering two predictors, a significance level of 5%, a statistical power of 0.8, and an average effect size (f² = 0.15, which is equivalent to r² = 13%), the minimum size of the sample required is 68 to be suitable for estimation by Partial Least Squares Path Modeling (PLS-PM). Considering that the total number of Business students at Unicamp is 960, the final sample of 508 students covered 53% of the course's students. Thus, the sample can be considered probabilistic for Business students at Unicamp, although it is not probabilistic for the Brazilian context of business students.

Thus, the final sample included 508 Business Administration students from Unicamp, with a mean age of 21 to 25 years, 52% female and 96% single. With the authorization of the unit's management, invitations were sent in the institutional email of all Business Administration students to voluntarily participate in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was available to be answered between October 20th and November 12th, 2020.

The University of Campinas (Unicamp) is the second best teaching and research institution in Brazil and the 214^th best in the world, according to the QS World University Rankings (Elsevier, 2021). In the international ranking by the British publication, Times Higher Education, of the World University Ranking 2019, the university is at the 401–500 level in the world and first place in Brazil (“Times Higher Education | World University Rankings,” 2020). Unicamp’s internal entrepreneurial university pathways have a positive effect on students’ start-up actions (Guerrero et al., 2014) and when compared with other universities from emerging countries, it has higher entrepreneurship outputs.

The first part of the questionnaire asked the respondent to consider the scenario prior to the pandemic, and the second part of the questionnaire asked the respondent to consider the current scenario, during the pandemic.

Since, the indicators used in the questionnaire were validated by previous research or adapted from related literature, a first step in the analysis was to perform a Confirmatory Data Analysis (CFA), where measures were tested in the same model and were restricted to load on their respective factor (Brady & Cronin, 2001). CFA results and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2. No indicators needed to be excluded from the model.

Table 2 Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Questions		Standardized path loading	Critical ratio	p-value	Mean	Standard deviation
Perceived University Support a
PUS1	Offer entrepreneurship disciplines	0.805	39.899	0.000	4.545	0.748
PUS2	Organize entrepreneurship events	0.886	86.115	0.000	4.376	0.834
PUS3	Contact entrepreneurship students with one another	0.854	65.364	0.000	4.456	0.810
PUS4	Support student organizations	0.444	7.670	0.000	4.614	0.708
PUS5	Offer makerspaces and fablabs	0.711	20.923	0.000	4.351	0.874
PUS6	Develop alumni programs	0.593	13.876	0.000	4.075	0.932
EntrepreneurialSelf-Efficacy b
SE1	Confident that I can successfully identify new business opportunities	0.836	70.061	0.000	3.355	1.083
SE2	Confident that I can successfully create new products	0.872	84.537	0.000	3.029	1.072
SE3	Confident that I can think creatively	0.758	40.268	0.000	3.721	1.053
SE4	Confident that I can successfully market an idea or new development	0.883	115.342	0.000	3.220	1.142
Entrepreneurial Intention b
EI1	Be willing to do whatever it takes to be an entrepreneur	0.897	136.827	0.000	3.244	1.208
EI2	Feeling that I would make every effort to start and run my own business	0.924	188.757	0.000	3.206	1.242
EI3	To feel that my greatest achievement would be to have my own business	0.867	95.506	0.000	3.088	1.352
EI4	Intend to start a business in the coming years	0.838	68.517	0.000	3.101	1.342
Source: Based on Rocha et al. (2014); Saeed et al. (2015) and Shi et al. (2020). Note: a Likert scale response from 1 (irrelevant) to 5 (very important). The students answered how much they thought some actions by the university were important. b Likert scale responses from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The students responded how much they agreed with the statements

Source: Based on Rocha et al. (2014); Saeed et al. (2015) and Shi et al. (2020). Note: ^a Likert scale response from 1 (irrelevant) to 5 (very important). The students answered how much they thought some actions by the university were important. ^b Likert scale responses from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The students responded how much they agreed with the statements

The internal consistency, composite reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the constructs were evaluated with SmartPLS 3 software (Hair et al., 2019). Cronbach's alpha assessed internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha values between 0.70 and 0.90 are considered satisfactory for studies in more advanced stages (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The composite reliability values should be at least 0.70 to indicate that the items are enough to represent their respective constructs (Hair et al., 2019). The average variance extracted (AVE) is one of the criteria for testing the convergent validity of a construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). AVE values higher than 0.50 are acceptable to indicate that a large amount of the mean-variance of the indicators is captured by each factor and not by the measurement error (Hair et al., 2019). All the mentioned values are within these limits (Table 3). The discriminant validity evaluates the distinction between two similar constructs. To confirm the discriminant validity of the model, the square root of AVE that is presented on the diagonal of the correlation matrix (Table 3) should present values higher than the correlation with other constructs (Hair et al., 2019). The square root of AVE values suggests that there is no relationship between the indicators associated with their respective construct with other constructs of the model.

Table 3 Table 3 Summary of the Evaluation of Measurement Models Table 3 Summary of the Evaluation of Measurement Models

Table 3
Summary of the Evaluation of Measurement Models
Constructs	Perceived University Support	Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy	Entrepreneurial Intention
Perceived University Support	0.839
Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy	0.584	0.882
Entrepreneurial Intention	0.290	0.310	0.732
Cronbach’s Alpha	0.833	0.859	0.905
Composite Reliability	0.897	0.904	0.914
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	0.536	0.703	0.778
Rho_A	0.897	0.877	0.914
Source: Elaborated by the authors (2022).

Source: Elaborated by the authors (2022).

The value of Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for each subsection of the structural model was analyzed to assess collinearity. If 0.2 < VIF < 5, the collinearity of the construct is adequate, and all values are within those established by Hair et al. (2019). The Student’s t-test analyzes the hypothesis that the coefficients of correlation are equal to zero. If the results of this test indicate values higher than 1.96, the hypothesis is rejected, and the correlation is significant (Hair et al., 2019).

The bootstrapping technique was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the constructs and all values of the relationships presented Student t-values higher than 1.96 (significance level = 5%), as seen on Table 4.

Table 4 Table 4 Coefficients of the Structural Model – Between constructs Table 4 Coefficients of the Structural Model – Between constructs

Table 4
Coefficients of the Structural Model – Between constructs
Path	Sample mean	Standard deviation	T-statistics	p-values
Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy à Entrepreneurial Intention	0.539	0.025	21.657	0.000
Perceived University Support à Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy	0.290	0.031	9.408	0.000
Perceived University Support à Entrepreneurial Intention	0.154	0.026	5.806	0.000
Source: Elaborated by the authors (2022).

Source: Elaborated by the authors (2022).

According to the results (Table 4), all relationships are significant at a significance level of 5%, supporting hypotheses 1, 2 and 3. These results are in line with previous studies, which indicate that the perceived university support has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy (Saeed et al., 2015; Moraes et al. 2018, 2021; Mustafa et al., 2016), and that self-efficacy has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intention (Moraes et al. , 2021; Saraih et al., 2018).

To evaluate the coefficient of determination (R²), analysis was based on Cohen (1988) and Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, and Buchner (2007), whose studies established that R² values equal to 2%, 13%, and 25% are considered, respectively, as small, medium and large effects. Regarding our analysis, the model presented R² of 0.084 for the construct self-efficacy, considered between small and medium, and R² of 0.363 for the construct entrepreneurial intention, considered high. Also, for SEM models, values of Q² higher than zero indicate the predictive relevance of the path model, which means that, in this study, the values are considered adequate (Hair et al., 2019).

In order to test whether there are differences between the relationships prior and during the pandemic periods, a multigroup analysis (Table 5) was performed (Hair et al., 2019).

Table 5 Table 5 Analysis of relationships according to the moment - during and before the pandemic Table 5 Analysis of relationships according to the moment - during and before the pandemic

Table 5
Analysis of relationships according to the moment - during and before the pandemic
Path	Path coefficients difference (during – before)	p-values
Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy à Entrepreneurial Intention	0.011	0.821
Perceived University Support à Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy	-0.027	0.659
Perceived University Support à Entrepreneurial Intention	0.044	0.384
Source: Elaborated by the authors (2022).

Source: Elaborated by the authors (2022).

Following our empirical results, it is possible to acknowledge that there are no differences prior and during the pandemic concerning the relationships amongst perceived university support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention, not confirming hypotheses 4, 4a, 4b and 4c. These results are contrary to those found by other authors. For Loan et al. (2021) and Ruiz-Rosa et al. (2020), the pandemic resulted in a decrease in entrepreneurial intention. Also, in Loan et al. (2021), the results point to an impact on self-efficacy as well. In the present study, in which we compared the moment before and the moment during the pandemic, the results indicated the students' perception did not change significantly. This may have been due to the fact that we were confronted two different moments, while other authors carried out an analysis in just one moment. The complete model is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Figure 2 Complete empirical model Figure 2 Complete empirical model Notes: * = significant at 5%; ** = significant at 1%; *** = significant at 0.1%; NS = not significant Source: Elaborated by the authors (2022).

The synthesis of the study hypotheses is shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Table 6 Synthesis of the Study Hypotheses Tests Table 6 Synthesis of the Study Hypotheses Tests

Table 6
Synthesis of the Study Hypotheses Tests
	Description	Result
H1	Perceived University Support has a positive influence on Entrepreneurial Intention	Confirmed
H2	Perceived University Support has a positive influence on Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy	Confirmed
H3	Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy has a positive influence on Entrepreneurial Intention	Confirmed
H4	The relationship amongst Perceived University Support, Entrepreneurial Intention and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy before confinement differs to the one presented during the confinement	Not confirmed
H4a	The Perceived University Support prior to confinement presented a better relationship with Entrepreneurial Intention than to the one demonstrated during confinement	Not confirmed
H4b	The Perceived University Support prior to confinement presented a better relationship with Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy than to the one demonstrated during confinement	Not confirmed
H4c	Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, prior to confinement, presented a better relationship with Entrepreneurial Intention than to the one demonstrated during confinement	Not confirmed
Source: Elaborated by the authors (2022).

Source: Elaborated by the authors (2022).

This research focused on unraveling the effect of Coronavirus pandemic at Unicamp students on entrepreneurship behavior, in specifics self-efficacy and intention, as well as on the entrepreneurial education, particularly perceived university support. The results reaffirmed previous research results that studied the university environment, entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy (Moraes et al., 2018, 2021; Mustafa et al., 2016; Saeed et al., 2015; Saraih et al., 2018). However, the results were contrary to those found in the literature regarding the impact of covid on entrepreneurial behavior (Loan et al., 2021; Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020).

Considering the confirmed hypotheses, the research reiterates the complementarity of the entrepreneurship triad and reinforces the determining factors of entrepreneurial intention (Fragoso et al., 2020), as seen in Newman et al. (2019). Although Newman et al. (2019) centered their study in entrepreneurial self-efficacy, they highlighted the extant research on entrepreneurial self-efficacy, its antecedents and outcomes. According to their perspective, self-efficacy interacts reciprocally with internal and external environments, acting as a key theoretical approach to study entrepreneurial actions and beliefs. Entrepreneurial education act as one of its antecedents, due to proper experiences supply, emotional competences and psychological traits enhancement, whereas entrepreneurial intention is transmitted as one of its outcomes, since it is associated with the individuals' perceptions of handling given situations. Therefore, the entrepreneurial thinking englobes entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention.

Regarding the unconfirmed hypotheses, although the relationships between perceived university support, entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial self-efficacy show differences, these differences were not significant. It is noteworthy that the effect of the pandemic was considered through the students' perceptions of such elements, before and during confinement. The COVID-19 pandemic and the many blockages in economies around the world have created a unique situation that has no documented equivalent in the entrepreneurship literature (Kuckertz et al., 2020). Thus, these results may be linked to the achievement of long-term goals and the tendency to persevere and sustain the effort when faced with difficulties or setbacks in life (Salisu et al., 2020). It aligns with the concept of resilience within the field of entrepreneurship, since it relates to one's preparedness or capacity to adjust, and, it also carries an encouragement of entrepreneurial activity, behaving as a determinant of entrepreneurial intention (Korber & McNaughton, 2018).

Alongside these findings, individuals have to sail through tough conditions and in crisis context to minimize the impacts of COVID-19 crisis and, optimistically, restore functionality (Salisu et al., 2020). Within entrepreneurship field, crisis management is predominantly aimed at evaluating the actions done to mitigate its potential negative consequences, but taking into consideration the challenges presented by COVID-19, it seems suitable the embrace of iterative and flexible approaches such as effectual logic (Kuckertz et al., 2020; Sarasvathy, 2001).

Another point to be highlighted is that, although entrepreneurial self-efficacy generally demonstrates high levels of influence on entrepreneurial intention (Fragoso et al., 2020; Moraes et al., 2021; Saraih et al., 2018), results showed that perceived university support was higher assessed at Unicamp, as they imply entrepreneurial knowledge lead to entrepreneurial intention. Put differently, entrepreneurial education contributes to the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Küttim et al., 2014; Lüthje & Franke, 2003; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). Accordingly, the online instruction broadens the spectrum of learning entrepreneurial education, straying away from the traditional teaching and pedagogical solutions (Liguori & Winkler, 2020).

Such fundamental aspects of this entrepreneurship triad make noteworthy its unity and triple nexus. Alternatively, the dramatic nature of COVID-19 could have initiated an undesired outcome for potential entrepreneurs, but these research findings illustrated the entrepreneurship connection to risk-taking, resilience, uncertainty and agile nature (Bacq et al., 2020; Caliendo & Kritikos, 2011; Kuckertz et al., 2020; Neumeyer et al., 2020).

This paper portrayed the relationship amongst Perceived University Support, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intention during one of most economically and socially disruptive events since the financial crisis in 2008 (Neumeyer et al., 2020). This article addressed the COVID-19 possible effects, prior and during confinement, on student’s entrepreneurial behavior and education and found no significant difference between the two-time sets.

It is known that entrepreneurial success depends on the support that entrepreneurs receive from their environment (Neumeyer et al., 2020), such as entrepreneurial resilience, that may serve as a crucial passageway to entrepreneurial success (Salisu et al., 2020). However, from a different perspective, the lack of support also matters. Kucketz et al. (2020) enlighten Germany’s current economic climate and state that since the COVID-19 outbreak, the niche of entrepreneurs had sales reduced while unaltering the fixed cost, representing a combination unfavorable for the long-term survival. Thus, the COVID-19 crisis besides threatening economy and health systems, it also threatens the potential for innovation that small business could have proven viable in normal times.

The research helped to fill the research gaps, which contribute to the construction of the field of scientific knowledge. By presenting an investigation model with two cross-sections of data collection, the research adds information about the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the relationship between entrepreneurial education, self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention (Loan et al., 2021; Ratten, 2020, 2021; Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2020) in a developing country context. The results reinforce that an online and non-traditional approach to entrepreneurship education can be used perfectly, despite the contextual circumstances (Liguori & Winkler, 2020). Furthermore, even with the uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic (WHO, 2020a), this may not be a strange scenario for entrepreneurship in Latin America, as uncertainty plays a central role as linked to the decision to innovate, continuous experimentation and learning (Guerrero et al., 2014; Isenberg, 2010). Finally, the information collected from a renowned Brazilian university complements the studies on perception of university support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention, while complementing the body of research on possible influences of the COVID-19 pandemic, integrating crisis management and entrepreneurship, which is another gap in the literature (Ratten, 2020, 2021).

From a practical point of view, the results bring interesting perspectives to the context of a developing country. Although the pandemic has aroused fears of an economic crisis, where many jobs were lost in all economic sectors (Nicola et al., 2020), it is possible to see positive points, such as a period of accelerated diffusion of digital technologies, micro-level initiatives and consideration of established forms of resource intensive use (Karabag, 2020). Thus, understanding that the pandemic has not yet impacted the entrepreneurial behavior of students, universities can take the opportunity to improve the university environment to support entrepreneurship, better preparing students for the opportunities and challenges in the post-pandemic moment. The results also demonstrate the need to increase students' self-efficacy, which can be achieved with more innovative initiatives to promote entrepreneurship in universities, connecting students to markets and going beyond conventional strategies based on courses and training aimed at entrepreneurship (Moraes et al., 2021).

It is important to notice that our results and discussion do not go without limitations. Mainly, it comprised only students enrolled at Unicamp. Therefore, the debate brought evidences of this specific group. This study considered the student’s perception, which stands as a subjective manner and reflects personal inclination. Besides, students from all years were approached, therefore the maturation in students' perceptions might differ when considering freshmen and senior students. Also, despite the extensive efforts to characterize the periods prior and during the confinement, scholars are still uncovering this theme and there might be more dimensions to be considered.

Further investigations are needed to validate this conceptual model. Replicating the study with students from other universities and other states, as well as encompassing an array of fields and levels could enrich the analyses. Besides, future investigation can focus on students from a specific course or year of graduation to understand their intention on endeavoring, even with external influences. Also, deepening the understanding of these constructs and their relation by performing a qualitative approach could offer further the understanding of these constructs and their interrelations. Another possibility is to perform a longitudinal study to evaluate the phases prior, during and posterior of students’ perception on entrepreneurial intention, self-efficacy and university environment. From our perspective, perhaps COVID-19 effects are still immature, which demands closer and longer investigations, particularly in the field of entrepreneurship.

This work was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation [grant number 2021/08267-2]; and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – CAPES [grant number 303924/2021-7].

I declare for due purposes that the authors have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ statement of individual contributions
Roles	Contributions by authors
	Rocha A.K.L. da	Pelegrini G.C.	Moraes G.H.S.M. de
Conceptualization	∎	∎	∎
Methodology			∎
Software			∎
Validation	∎	∎	∎
Formal analysis	∎	∎	∎
Investigation	∎	∎
Resources	∎	∎	∎
Data Curation	∎	∎	∎
Writing - Original Draf	∎	∎	∎
Writing - Review & Editing	∎	∎	∎
Visualization	∎		∎
Supervision		∎
Project administration	∎	∎	∎
Funding acquisition	∎	∎	∎