Background: Within the United Kingdom’s ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ agenda, reshaping drug and alcohol interventions in prisons is central to the Government’s approach to addressing substance dependence in the prison population and reduce reoffending. To achieve this, a through-care project to support offenders following release, ‘Gateways’, is taking place providing ‘through the gate’ support to released offenders, including help with organising accommodation, education and employment, and access to a peer supporter. In addition, Gateways is providing access to an evidence-based computer-assisted therapy (CAT) programme for substance misuse, Breaking Free Health & Justice (BFHJ). Developed in partnership with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) National Offender Management Services (NOMS), and based on a community version of the programme, Breaking Free Online (BFO), BFHJ provides access to clinically-robust techniques based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and promotes the role of technology-enhanced approaches in recovery from substance misuse. The BFHJ programme is provided via ‘Virtual Campus’ (VC), a secure, web-based learning environment delivered by NOMS and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which has no links to websites not approved by MoJ, and provides prisoners with access to online training courses around work and skills. Providing BFHJ on VC makes the programme the world’s first online healthcare programme to be provided in prisons. Aims: Although here is an emerging evidence-base for the effectiveness of the community version of the BFO programme and its implementation within community treatment settings (Davies, Elison, Ward, & Laudet, 2015; Elison, Davies, & Ward, 2015a, 2015b; Elison, Humphreys, Ward, & Davies, 2013; Elison, Ward, Davies, Lidbetter, et al., 2014; Elison, Ward, Davies, & Moody, 2014), its potential within prison settings requires exploration. This study therefore sought to examine the processes of implementation of this novel digital health programme and the various barriers and facilitators of this, including the practicalities of providing an online treatment programme in an environment in which there are multiple, complex security requirements and considerations. Additionally, the acceptability of the BFHJ programme to prisoners who may have limited experience of using online technologies was also explored. Clinical outcomes in terms of the programmes impact on substance dependence and use were also examined. Methods: In line with the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines around development and evaluation of complex interventions (Craig et al., 2008), a mixed-methods approach was used including a qualitative study to explore the implementation of this online treatment programme within the secure prison environment, and offender perceptions of this novel, technology-enhanced approach to substance misuse treatment. In addition, quantitative data derived from a battery of standardised psychometric assessments was used to examine clinical effectiveness of BFHJ. Results: In order to meet MoJ security requirements prior to implementation, the BFHJ programme had to be reviewed and ‘white listed’ by NOMS and their security partner XMA to ensure the programme met all security, quality and information assurance processes and standards. This was a lengthy and costly process that entailed freshly developing the programme in partnership with VC experts at NOMS to ensure the programme is ‘sterile’ i.e., there are no holes in the system or links to external websites – this comprised some aspects of the programme content and resulted in some clinical techniques requiring reworking e.g., removing Google maps from one section of the programme. Themes emerging from qualitative data around offenders experiences of BFHJ illustrate its potential for use in prison settings and also to provide, for the first time, genuine continuity of care during transfer between different prisons and upon release from prison into the community, given prisoners can access their BFHJ programme account regardless of their location. In terms of clinical outcomes, changes in psychometric scores from baseline to follow-up indicated significant reductions in dependence to drugs and alcohol, alongside improvements to quality of life and other aspects of psychosocial functioning relevant to substance misuse and recovery progression. Linear regression were conducted for each psychometric outcome to examine whether time periods in weeks between baseline and follow-up assessment acted as predictors of change in psychometric scores. Time elapsed between assessments did not predict change in scores for severity of dependence to drugs and alcohol or quality of life. However, time between baseline and follow-up assessment did significantly predict change in psychosocial aspects of recovery progression. In addition, degree of improvement on the outcomes measured appeared to be associated with prisoner age, with older prisoners demonstrating greater improvements than younger prisoners. Conclusions: Findings from this study support the use of BFHJ within prisons settings in terms of acceptability of this technology-enhanced approach to treatment, despite the complexities around implementing an online treatment programme in the highly digitally secure setting of the prison estate. Additionally, clinical outcomes appear to replicate the outcomes from studies of the programme in community-based substance misuse treatment settings. Further work is now underway, including a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and longer-term follow-up of substance use and offending outcomes, which is being conducted in collaboration with the MoJ Justice Data Lab.