The data analysis responded to the primary goal of the research and its objective by comparing conventional versus alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine for the treatment of chronic pain. The study also indicated the reasons that the participants preferred a particular method over the others. For example, as stated before according to physician A one participant preferred alternative medicine to conventional medicine because "the participant did not want to have an injection to his elbow, and acupuncture gave him an alternative answer to his problem." Technically a mixed study, the primary portion of the research was qualitative. The use of content analysis with quantitative design was used to summarize the counts and percentages of how many participants contributed to each qualitative theme. The quantitative portion was the health survey. The study did not focus on the structure of consciousness in human experiences. The study showed that participants preferred alternative, complementary, or integrative medicine to conventional medicine. The reason may link to the strong value attached by each culture and religious belief to the treatment type, and the confidence of participants have in their physicians. In general, 41.2% ( n= 7) were satisfied with integrative medicine for chronic pain or some combination with it, whereas 47.1% ( n = 8) were satisfied with alternative treatment only: 47.1% ( n = 8) used integrative medicine for chronic pain or some combination with it, whereas 29.4% ( n =5) used alternative treatment only. Thirteen of the 17 participants ( 76.5%) chose alternative medicine because it was good for the body, for personal preference, and because it was practical.