Frontiers in public health · 2026
Survey-based evidence on occupational fraud exposure, reporting behavior, and informal norms in Romania, Ukraine, and the Republic of Moldova.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Morosan-Danila Lucia, Neamtu Daniela-Mihaela, Grigoras-Ichim Claudia-Elena, Zelinschi Denisa-Oana
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Occupational fraud is usually examined as a financial control and governance problem, but it may also be relevant to occupational and organizational health through reporting culture, perceived accountability, and workplace governance. However, this study does not measure health outcomes directly.
METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey (19 items) was administered between September 2025 and February 2026 to 1,007 employed adults (Romania = 407; Ukraine = 350; Moldova = 250). Differences among surveyed national subsamples were tested with χ 2 tests (nominal items) and Kruskal-Wallis tests (ordinal items) with Holm adjustment. Covariate-adjusted ordinal and binary logistic regression models were estimated to assess whether selected fraud-related outcomes remained associated with national subsample membership after adjustment for age, gender, residence environment, organization type, and organization size. Multiple Correspondence Analysis, followed by k-means clustering, was used to explore aggregated response typologies.
RESULTS: Perceived fraud typology differed significantly across surveyed national subsamples (χ 2 = 58.16, p < 0.001; Cramér's V = 0.17). Among surveyed respondents from Ukraine, higher-frequency proposals to engage in potentially fraudulent or unethical activities were more common (ITM_4, categories 3-5: 28.6% vs. 18.2% in Romania and 17.2% in Moldova). Personal victimization was also highest among surveyed respondents from Ukraine (14.6%), whereas indirect victimization, measured as knowing victimized colleagues, was highest among respondents from Moldova (46.4%). A two-cluster solution separated a large "lower-exposure/refusal-dominant" profile from a smaller "higher-exposure/non-refusal-enriched" profile that was more frequent among respondents from Ukraine and Moldova. In adjusted outcome models, several contrasts persisted: respondents from Ukraine showed higher odds of fraud-related/unethical proposal frequency, perceived workplace gift/hospitality acceptance, and selecting no action rather than notifying management (OR = 3.82, 95% CI 1.65-8.85), whereas respondents from the Republic of Moldova showed higher odds of personal/indirect victimization and perceived colleague involvement.
CONCLUSION: Among surveyed respondents, exposure, reporting behavior, and informal workplace norms varied across the three national subsamples. The findings cautiously suggest that anti-fraud interventions may benefit from considering the reporting cultures and perceived exposure patterns observed in each surveyed subsample. However, because the sample was non-probabilistic and effect sizes were generally small, policy implications should be interpreted as exploratory. They should not be generalized to national populations without further representative research.
METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey (19 items) was administered between September 2025 and February 2026 to 1,007 employed adults (Romania = 407; Ukraine = 350; Moldova = 250). Differences among surveyed national subsamples were tested with χ 2 tests (nominal items) and Kruskal-Wallis tests (ordinal items) with Holm adjustment. Covariate-adjusted ordinal and binary logistic regression models were estimated to assess whether selected fraud-related outcomes remained associated with national subsample membership after adjustment for age, gender, residence environment, organization type, and organization size. Multiple Correspondence Analysis, followed by k-means clustering, was used to explore aggregated response typologies.
RESULTS: Perceived fraud typology differed significantly across surveyed national subsamples (χ 2 = 58.16, p < 0.001; Cramér's V = 0.17). Among surveyed respondents from Ukraine, higher-frequency proposals to engage in potentially fraudulent or unethical activities were more common (ITM_4, categories 3-5: 28.6% vs. 18.2% in Romania and 17.2% in Moldova). Personal victimization was also highest among surveyed respondents from Ukraine (14.6%), whereas indirect victimization, measured as knowing victimized colleagues, was highest among respondents from Moldova (46.4%). A two-cluster solution separated a large "lower-exposure/refusal-dominant" profile from a smaller "higher-exposure/non-refusal-enriched" profile that was more frequent among respondents from Ukraine and Moldova. In adjusted outcome models, several contrasts persisted: respondents from Ukraine showed higher odds of fraud-related/unethical proposal frequency, perceived workplace gift/hospitality acceptance, and selecting no action rather than notifying management (OR = 3.82, 95% CI 1.65-8.85), whereas respondents from the Republic of Moldova showed higher odds of personal/indirect victimization and perceived colleague involvement.
CONCLUSION: Among surveyed respondents, exposure, reporting behavior, and informal workplace norms varied across the three national subsamples. The findings cautiously suggest that anti-fraud interventions may benefit from considering the reporting cultures and perceived exposure patterns observed in each surveyed subsample. However, because the sample was non-probabilistic and effect sizes were generally small, policy implications should be interpreted as exploratory. They should not be generalized to national populations without further representative research.